Philosophy Books

I decided to order this book after reading an article from Susan Blackmore on the web.
I am half way through the book.
God, it is so good.
Takes you through so different approaches to think about consciousness.
I am a computer guy and don't know much about psychology, cognitive sciences... but Susan makes it very accessible and you get to learn about many different fields (philosophy, psychology, biology, computer science...)
It's the only book I have read about the subject, so I don't know how it compares to others.
But I found the book extremly clear, well divided and the layout is just great.
Amazing job.
If you are like me, you may have your opinions on consciousness, and you may wonder what other people that thought about it have to say.
Then this book is for you.

Shortly after read THE MEME MACHINE, I had a dream in which I was arguing with Susan Blackmore about her denial of the existence of a self. She told me that I had just misunderstood her. Though quite sure that I had not misunderstood her, from past experience I know that my unconscious is aware of more things than I am, it seemed a good idea to further examine her ideas. Though an excellent book, this review will concentrate upon those parts with which I disagree, since those were the part that forced me to think more deeply about my own bias.

Susan Blackmore presents the strictly materialist view of consciousness. In other words, she believes that the self, free will, and consciousness are all illusions. To say that something is an illusion is not to deny that it exists, but that it is something quite different than it appears to be. Some years ago while working in a hay field after dark, my friends and I saw several rabbits jumping around near a hay bale. When we got closer, we saw that these rabbits were just paper beings rustled by the breeze. The paper really existed; the rabbits did not. As I understand SB, consciousness is more like papers blowing in the wind than real rabbits. This conclusion necessarily follows from SB's assumption that it has already been proven that consciousness is a product of blind evolution.

SB points out that "the underlying molecular processes are usually assumed to be deterministic, so this is one reason why there appears to be no room for free will." Quantum effects cause indeterminacy, but these infinitesimal effects merely provide for a range of similar, random outcomes rather than drastically altering the possible outcomes. This is also necessarily true for molecules functioning in the evolutionary process. It is a truism that life and human consciousness can only exist because molecules have to potential to form them. Blind evolution insists that this potential is accidental rather than intrinsic. Dennett's evolutionary algorithm - "If you have variation, selection, and heredity, you must get evolution" - glosses over the fact that for life to have formed there had to have been hundreds of molecules, each with a complex, highly specific structure, working together to capture and extract energy, replicate, and protect themselves. These molecules had to do these things because the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that they must assume the most stable, lowest-energy confirmation available. Why more reasonable to assume that these molecules did this by mere chance than to assume that life and consciousness are innate qualities of existence? We might assume, as many intelligent people do, that these qualities were put in the molecules by God, but explaining the existence of complexity by assuming that it was created by something infinitely more complex answers nothing. It is more reasonable to assume that life and consciousness exist in primordial form in non-living matter. If this is true, then evolution is not a consequence of selfish genes being by haphazardous gamma bombardment and fighting amongst themselves by survival of the fittest; genes are naturally self-mutating and survival of the fittest is merely the rule life must follow as it naturally progresses towards a level of complexity capable of self-reflective intelligence. This is the possibility that SB either completely ignores or derisively dismisses as "magic." The actual evidence is no better for accidental than intrinsic consciousness, and the latter assumption has the virtue of being optimistic. We are not required to imagine gene machines at odds with their constituent molecules, as Dawkins does, or that consciousness might actually be harmful, as SB does.

If consciousness exists in its own right, then asking what consciousness is for is meaningless. Consciousness just is. Matter is so that consciousness can organize itself into life and intelligence. SB quotes Searle's statement, "brains cause minds." True, but consciousness causes brains. Therein lies the conundrum of human existence, because brains, as SB tells us, function essentially as "mindless" meme machines. Meme machines form "selfplexes," arbitrary identities forged by whatever environment we happen to be in. One brain can even form multiple selfplexes. If our minds are cut off from the primordial consciousness that is the center of our being, our sense of self is indeed delusional, with only delusional free will, and with a pronounced tendency to ideology addiction. In SB's world, our being has no center, so there can be no true self.

According to Carl Jung, the main human task is to undergo the individuation process in order to realize the higher self. SB dismisses Jung's theories as frustratingly untestable, though this complain is equally true of her meme theory, and of Buddha's (SB is a Buddhist) notion that one can awaken to the fact that there is no self through meditation. I was surprised to discover that Buddha denied the existence of self. Jung favored Buddhism above all other religion, yet the doctrine of no self clearly contradicts Jung's notion of the higher self. However, this is really only so if Buddha was a materialist. If Buddha was not a materialist, it is surely misleading to call him a "bundle theorist," as SB does. What could it mean for a bundle of sensations to achieve enlightenment? There is no self beneath the delusional self to be free of delusion. SB quotes Wren-Lewis: "it is no longer the 60-year-old John who looks out at the world, but the shining dark infinite void that in some extraordinary way is also `I.'" D. T. Suzuki says, "Absolute faith is placed in a man's own inner being." These two men, at least, seem to experience a self beneath the delusions. However, when we once start giving this pure sense of "I" names such as "divine self," and claiming that Christ is a symbol of this higher self, we will most likely delude ourselves with memetic jargon. So if Buddha was not a materialist, I think I understand what he was getting at. Since SB is a materialist, I understand but disagree with what she is getting at.
(Peter Payne, author of CAPTAIN CALIFORNIA: A YOUNG MAN'S ENCOUNTER WITH THE EVIL WITHIN HIMSELF)

Don't kid yourself. Reading this book will be a lot of hard work, as each chapter takes a lot of thinking and reflecting.
But is also lots of fun. And Susan Blackmore
guides you through the subject with plenty of good and precise insights. So, it is well worth the effort.

Some chapters I would have liked longer and more in depth, while some could have been shortened considerable in my view. However, with a subject matter that has kept the best thinkers on the planet busy for at least the last two millennia - I guess you shouldn't be surprised that readers might disagree on the weight certain issues are given in this book.
Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, consciousness
gets covered from all the angles you would expect from such a book. From neurology and biology to philosophy and onwards to artificial intelligence. Certainly, I don't feel that there is anything missing in Blackmores introduction to the subject of consciousness.

Like other readers I feel that it is far too early for the construction and reinforcement of any orthodoxy or dogma in the field of consciousness (Except of course that I think we should keep the loony stuff out - and there I go, on my way to my own definitions of good and bad).
And I do enjoy Dennett as much as the next guy - but from time to time in the book you have the feeling that Dennett is "truth", while the author feels free to deal a mortal blow or two to others, as being merely silly believers in the cartesian theatre model.
Certainly I don't think e.g. Antonio Damasio is given fair deal in this book (as I consider his work really outstanding and far above any cartesian theatre illusions). Damasio is also more in line with what I think might be the truth of the matter that Dennett. Blackmore has the bias the other way around. Or so it seems. But nevermind.

Still, it is a brilliant and enlightening book.

-Simon

We use this text in my Levels of Conscienciousness class. Great illustrations, very detailed. It is a bit deep, so you must know some Psychology and have an interest and desire to stay on top of this subject.

Susan Blackmore has written a textbook on "consciousness". Do not be put off, it is eminently suitable as a reference. A feature is the extensive bibliography at the back. Blackmore is a determinist but freely discusses the work of other researchers who do not share her viewpoint.

For anyone seriously wanting to come to grips with the latest ideas in human consciousness, this book is invaluable.

I should preface this review by stating that I am not a student of philosophy, nor was I previously familiar with Bertrand Russell's other works. I ordered this collection of essays after seeing it referenced in several other books dealing with secular humanism.

While some of the essays necessarily seem a bit dated (most were written between 1900 and 1960), many of the themes Russell touches upon seem particularly relevant today. Russell writes passionately and articulately about the dangerous role that dogma -- particularly religious dogma -- plays in curtailing free thought and active debate. Further, he warns of the pain and suffering that have historically followed when dogmatic views are forced upon the population at large by those in power.

There are many other powerful ideas contained in this collection. For example, Russell also provides sobering insights on the dangers inherent in any democracy -- particularly the "tyranny of the majority" which can silence unpopular ideas.

Given the chilling times we live in -- when reasoned debate and diversity of opinion seem to be increasingly threatened by dogma (both political and religious) -- Russell's ideas (and warnings) are especially poignant.

Of course, not all of the essays resonate today. The discussion of Catholic and Protestant skeptics seems a bit strange (to say the least).

Finally, this volume concludes with an article written by Prof. Paul Edwards detailing why Bertrand Russell was prevented by teaching at the College Of The City Of New York. It is a fascinating example of how the political and legal systems of a supposedly free democracy can be used to suppress unpopular ideas and impose dogmatic belief systems.

My only reason for withholding a 5th star is that I would like to have seen the publishers release an updated edition with greater historical background and footnotes. Otherwise, an excellent and thought-provoking collection of essays.

The fact that short essays carried one theme, instead of a lengthy essays with complex nuances, strengthens the theories of B. Russell.
A bright ideological strategy to say the least.
Russell's atheism is not a tumultuous philosophy, but rather conceptual pacifism. And his anti-war policy echoes a high standard of ethics.

Then, should we question liberal morality when intended to equality and peace among nations?
I don't think so.

The historical Chairman Mao condemned religion as poison, Bertrand Russell defined religion as the expression of fear and social inquietude.
Through intellectual development, societies progress, and nations prosper. Mr. Russell is perfectly correct.

I give this book 5 stars without hesitation

One need not be against religious belief to appreciate Russell's scholarship. If one is against the subjection of the individual for the benefit of the state, one can find much to appreciate in his philosophy, even if you disagree with his theistic views.

After 9/11, when I finally determined to clarify my own beliefs about gods and religions (I'd left them hazy for much too long) this and Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim were the two most useful books I found. Russell's essay isn't elaborate or long, but it covered the ground for someone like me who's lives in a basically Judeo-Christian culture. It was interesting and gratifying to see that Warraq's book (which gave me new knowledge about Islamic religion, history, and culture) was, in essence, much the same. Not that I started out thinking myself either a Judeo-Christian or Muslim, but it was interesting to get better perspective on how all the major religions offer basically the same set of rewards and pitfalls. I used to make Buddhism a benign exception to that, but not so much anymore after a glimpse of Sri Lankan history. Take Me With You When You Go Nutty to Meet You! Dr. Peanut Book #1

One has to wonder just how sound someone's philosophical underpinnings are when to justify a philosophical point the author makes an appeal to a well-known character of fiction such as Robinson Crusoe and Charles Dickens' novels as vindication of that principal or principles! His purpose would best be served it he maintained the use of realistic examples.

Mr. Russell provides the reader with examples of Christian intolerance and injustice and the like while stating that it was freethinkers that corrected such errors shows that the author is being very selective in his choice of examples of the errors of Christianity. The author wrote, "The whole contention that Christianity has had an elevating moral influence can only be maintained by wholesale ignoring or falsification of the historical evidence." Mr. Russell is clearly being very selective of his "historical evidence" and choosing only those examples that best suit the purpose of his book. To the contrary the followers of Christ have introduced reforms that have improved the lot of man tremendously as true history clearly shows while one would be hard pressed to find any such benefits introduced, much less produced, by freethinkers on such a scale that Christianity has. While it is true that some supposed segments of Christianity were responsible for certain outrages these incidences are not symptomatic of Christianity as a whole nor should be construed as such. The atrocities committed by those who adopted the guise of Christian have done so only to gain the support and popularity of the people for their cause if not to use it as the justification of such acts.
The examples Mr. Russell chose as representative of Christianity are, as I've stated before, very selective and are not representative of Christianity as a whole. It is abundantly clear that the author is not being intellectually honest.
One gets the impression that the author thinks that Christianity is some sinister evil waiting for the appropriate time for it to rear its head to befoul the world anew. It appears that the author is letting his atheism interfere with his objectivity.
In his book Mr. Russell makes the rather outrageous claim, "And yet everybody who has taken the trouble to study morbid psychology knows that prolonged virginity is, as a rule, extraordinarily harmful to women, so harmful that, in a sane society, it would be severely discouraged in teachers." It's statements like this that has diminished a once bright star in the philosophical heavens.
The examples Mr. Russell chose as representative of Christianity are, as I've stated before, very selective and are not representative of Christianity as a whole. It is abundantly clear that the author is not being intellectually honest.

This book is nothing more than the result of a very narrow and/or biased philosophy.

This collection of essays is probably the best introduction to the non-fiction works of C.S. Lewis. It provides an intellectual and spiritual challenge to any intelligent reader.

C.S. Lewis is known for being one of the best apologists (and amateur theologians) of our day. Primarily, Lewis is a writer; he knows how to use words to draw the reader in, and then humbly offers his insights on whatever topic is at hand. It is this humility that I think makes him so accessible - he talks about what he knows and doesn't presume to be an authority over anyone.

About GOD IN THE DOCK specifically, this is a collection of his letters, columns, and speeches. Most are short (4-10 pages) reflections on something he has encountered recently, from animal-rights protestations to dogma within the church to attempts to debunk myth to Christmas. Really, though, each one of these essays is about modernism. Modernism is the arch-enemy to Lewis - in its materialism, rationalism, statism and "groupism", it denies the validity of opposing systems of thought. Miracles are definitively ruled because they can't be reproduced in a lab (which Lewis argues is precisely why they are "miraculous" in the first place." Christian beliefs are discarded because they are similar to other "primitve" myths; Lewis argues that if God is real and we are made in His image, it makes sense that we would have common motifs in how we think about Him.

The essays in GOD IN THE DOCK are mostly designed to show the fallacies in people's thinking. They start with an observation, continue to describe the orthodox Christian point of view, point out something which the reader already knows to be true, and then shows that it makes more sense in the context of orthodox thought rather than modernist thought. What I found most interesting was that the same problems that Lewis wrestled with in his day are the same ones that Americans face today! I'm not sure if this proves that history repeats itself or if America is just 50 years behind England. Either way, Lewis' predictions for the future if his society continued to follow the modernist path were vindicated (if anything, he underestimated the degree to which society would degenerate).

In summary, C.S. Lewis was a humble and insightful man whose essays cover a wide gamut of topics. Each essay is short, about a 15 minute read, which is a comfortable way to wind down the day. I think that he very correctly evaluated the danger that modernism poses to humanity. Finally, his essay topics are very relevant to Americans whose country is now hashing outt he same issues that Lewis' nation did fifty years ago.

Lewis was prolific thinker, reader and writer on theology and ethics, two of his real passions. Here collected some of them, 25 around plus some letters.

We find him commenting on wide range of subjects, from decline or rise of Christianity in England of his day to apologetics to capital punishment to the question of animals in heaven, or women as pastors.

If this hasn't sufficiently whetted your appetitie to read, likely you're not interested in such as Lewis was, and wouldn't enjoy this great read at all.

But if you're hooked, you'll be landed with gratification after pouring over selected or all these well done writings. As another reviewer so correctly pointed out, one truly gets more insight into the man's thoughts and personality from these. One that truly captivated this reviewer was: The Decline of Religion. Here he wrestles with significant topic, does empty pews suggest decline in Chrisianity? He has not illusions as so many do that the true church is visible, and flushes all prestensions away for those who have not the true motivator for pew occupance. Commenting on storm of Christian activity at Oxford for faith as sign of comeback of faith he comments: "The propagandist, the apologist, only represents John Baptist: the Preacher represents the Lord Himself. He will be sent--or else he will not. But unless he comes we mere Christian intellectuals will not effect very much. That does not mean we should down tools." Well said.

The more of these I read, the more I like the man. Would have been wonderful to sit by a fire as at Inklings gathering and talk over cigar or pipe and coffee and other libations. Yet, seems just like that in these remanants of his thinking.

"God in the Dock" is the British way of saying "God on Trial." In the UK, "the dock" is the physical enclosure in the courtroom where the defendant stands. Whether this collection of Lewis' short works is the best out there or not, it would certainly sell more copies if the title made sense in US English.

1. This book challenged and enlightened me.
2. I found much food for thought.
3. I felt again the pure genius of Lewis's insights and writings.
4. I refer to this book often.
5. I am always amazed at the relevancy of his messages.
6. This book is life-changing and powerful!

Thanks, it got here quick and is in good condition.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Wollstonecraft is not easy to read however, she makes a compelling argument. Mary Wollstonecraft viewed the institution of marriage simply as legal prostitution. She believed this to be the case for several reasons. First, the marriage laws in Britain at the time gave men legal rights over their wives including their property. The law also gave men custody of their children in event of divorce, and a woman could not even obtain a divorce without their husband's consent. For women divorce meant having to leave everything of importance in their lives behind. Thus, Wollstonecraft observed that Britain's laws left women in the unenviable position of being treated as mere chattel by their husbands. Second, Wollstonecraft argued that women's downtrodden position in society was not the cause of religious or moral teachings. She was emphatic in her assessment that it was women's denial of the same educational opportunities that men received that made them seem weak and inferior to men. Finally, she believed marriage only chained women to a life of drudgery in the home.

Armed with this information, Wollstonecraft set out to propose in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women the idea, that equal education for women was the only remedy for this grave injustice perpetrated against them, and education for women would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. She made several prescient arguments to support this idea. First, Wollstonecraft believed schoolchildren needed the contact and interaction with other schoolchildren to develop properly. So, she argued against Britain's system of elitist education, especially its private schools and boarding schools. She advocated for the creation of national public schools, funded by the state, and attended by children from the entire socio-economic strata. Second, she thought it was imperative that both boys and girls must be educated together. The reason Wollstonecraft believed in coeducation, was that when both boys and girls get to know one another from an early age they would in turn, build friendships, and learn to respect one another. Therefore, when women get married, they will be able to serve as companions to their husbands and not just as trophy wives or sexual objects. "Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses." Third, Wollstonecraft asked the question, how society could expect mothers to rear healthy boys capable of functioning as confident and productive men in society if their mothers, who raised them, were uneducated. She was horrified to think of the damage already done to children by uneducated, weak-minded mothers. Wollstonecraft articulates in beautiful fashion her argument for the need to educate women in the following quote. "If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfill the peculiar duties of their sex." This argument only enhances women's roles as wives and mothers. Finally, Wollstonecraft argued that the implementation of her educational reforms would prove to be a key element leading to the improvement of the institution of marriage in particular, and for family life in general. "Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and feminism.

I picked this book up in Boston waiting for my wife to order coffee and was instantly enamoured with the author's prose. At times I wondered if I was reading an essay or poetry.

Regardless, Mary Wollstonecraft summarizes the plight of women very well and the reader ( whether male or female ) gets a palpable sense of it's injustice.

She concludes that since the literate male giants like " Rousseau" bolstered the prevailing thought that men were made to reason and women to feel it is hardly suprising that women were oppressed.

From birth women, in the manor of pets, are trained in refining their "sensibilities" pursuing frivolity in "proper manners and etiquette" and stylish dress to the exclusion of cultural and intellectual development. Her only purpose to marry and become slave to the whim of her man's pleasure . Her drudgery and mindless existence is punctuated only by her childish outbursts. In such a state she is hardly capable of independent living let alone thought and utterly unfit as a mother. This state of affairs not only degrades women but men of reason and society at large since domestic affairs ultimately spill upon the fabric of society.

The baleful consequences of such forced behaviours are a romantic temperment reinforced by reading novels of the day instead of science or history the latter deemed "boring" since the women lack the capacity to understand it. Such women being deprived of intellectual stimulation focus on vanity which further corrupts their soul making them envious, bitter and mean. Any woman who dares to challenge this state of affairs is ostracized almost to the same extent as a woman who has lost her "reputation".

Mary Wollstonecraft writings are rife with social and political commentary which is refreshing. She is particularly critical of the upper class and their perpetuation of oppression.

This book gave me an aha moment.

The world is full of interesting things to try and do. So what?

Put an end to all striving. Why not?

First, if you're looking for a straight translation of the Tao te Ching, this isn't it. If, however, you want a book that roughly translates one of the world's great texts into modern leadership language, this book is great.
Broken into simple chapters to match the Ching, it easily conveys very profound ideas for group facilitation and leadership. Like the Tao te Ching, it's emphasis is on the yin or gentler aspects of leadership. It's good to balance this with a more yang book (Good to Great, Leadership is An art, etc.) to get a rounded perspective on leadership.
However, since most leadership in Western culture is very yang oriented, this will provide a good balance and deep insights that will assist most of us in becoming better leaders.

I taught management development seminars and provided private coaching to hundreds of managers at all levels of organizations for 22+ years from front line supervisors to state government department heads, and this was a book I highly recommended for everyone... considered one of the bibles of group dynamics. I highly recommend it for anyone in any area of life, whether leading a family or a multi-billion dollar business. It's very easy reading and gives all the basics of the group dynamics involved in leading groups, projects, short-term or long-term. Enjoy! Thanks, Darla Desautel

In this great book, you will find the essence of Level 5 leadership ("Good to Great" by Jim Collins), the core principles espoused by Steven Sample in "The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership," and the leader-as-water concept echoed in Peter B. Vaill's "Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent White Water." Indeed, this small text contains a bookshelf-worth of leadership wisdom. I only wish that the book editor and corrector were a bit more diligent and took out the numerous typos, before this book was published.

This is perhaps one of the best 5 books I've ever read. Unlike typical leadership books, this one reads like a poem on each page. A short poem, rich with meaning that resonates as true.

An example - the leader's job is not to direct, but to be as quiet as a guest. What? We are all taught that the leader is a cigar-chomping, machine-gun totin', square jaw, take-no-prisoners type. Right? The Toa of Leadership invites you to adopt a different leadership style, focused first on finding balance within yourself, then illuminating others so that they can make wise decisions. The more you interfere and direct others, the less of a leader you are.

This book changed the way I thought about leadership. I continue to reflect on its lessons 10 years later, and it continues to guide my decisions. I can't say the same about 99% of the books I've read. This is a must-read book, and one you should re-read regularly.

I opened this book in pleasurable anticipation of a good read but almost from the first line became irritated by De Botton's use of similes and adjectives, many of which border on the absurd. The decline of winter is `like that of a person into old age'. Cloudless skies are likened to `signs of recovery in a patient upon whom death has passed sentence'. A steely grey sky has - of course - to be `ominous'. But not just ominous: it has to be `like one in a painting by Mantegna or Veronese, the perfect backdrop to the crucifixion of Christ or to a day beneath the bedclothes.' and so it goes on. At times I was reminded of the laboured similes in a Rowan Atkinson comedy. Page 17 is a prime example of De Botton's laboured, Victorian style and deserves a lengthy quotation:

`Awakening early on that first morning, I slipped on a dressing gown provided by the hotel and went out onto the veranda. In the dawn light the sky was a pale grey-blue and, after the rustlings of the night before, all the creatures and even the wind seemed in a deep sleep. It was as quiet as a library. Beyond the hotel room stretched a wide beach which was covered at first with coconut trees and then slipped unhindered towards the sea. I climbed over the veranda's low railing and walked across the sand. Nature was at her most benevolent. It was as if, in creating this small horseshoe bay, she had chosen to atone for her ill-temper in other regions and decided for once to display only her munificence. The trees provided shade and milk, the floor of the sea was lined with shells, the sand was powdery and the colour of sun ripened wheat, and the air - even in the shade - had an enveloping, profound warmth to it so unlike the fragility of northern European heat, always prone to cede, even in midsummer, to a more assertive, proprietary chill.
`I found a deck chair at the edge of the sea. I could hear small lapping sands beside me, as if a kindly monster taking discreet sips of water from a large goblet. A few birds were waking up and beginning to career through the air in matinal excitement. Behind me, the raffia roofs of the hotel bungalows were visible through gaps in the trees. Before me was the view that I recognized from the brochure: the beach stretched away in a gentle curve towards the tip of the bay, behind it were jungle-covered hills, and the first row of coconut trees inclined irregularly towards the turquoise sea, as though some of them were craning their necks to catch a better angle of the sun.
`Yet this description only imperfectly reflects what occurred within me that morning, for my attention was in truth far more fractured and confused than the foregoing paragraphs suggest. I may have noticed a few birds careering through the air in matinal excitement, but my awareness of them was weakened by a number of other, incongruous and unrelated elements, among these a sore throat that I had developed during the flight, a worry at not having informed a colleague that I would be away, pressure across both temples and a rising need to visit the bathroom. A momentous but until then overlooked fact was making its first appearance: that I had inadvertently brought myself with me to the island.'

De Botton never loses an opportunity to demonstrate how much he or his quasi-anonymous companion `M' has read. While a single cloud hangs `shyly' above the bay, the mysterious `M' (is she head of MI6?) puts on her headphones and begins annotating Emile Durkheim's On Suicide. She would.

The author's idea of travel seems to consist in boarding planes, catching trains, filling up at gas stations and hiring cars. He seems to have a horror of engaging with the real world of people and chatter and tears and sweat, as opposed to the worlds of art and literature and posy criticism. His is the infuriating voice of the tour guide that gets between you and a work of art, the voice that tells you what to think, the voice that prevents you making up your own mind about the works of Hopper or Van Gogh or Wordsworth or Ruskin.

The book is little more than a hotch-potch of regurgitated university lecture notes interspersed by some very amateurish attempts at descriptive writing. `A black-eared wheatear is looking pensive on a conifer branch ... humans and sheep stare at one another in wonder. After a moment the sheep sits down and takes a lazy mouthful of grass, chewing from the side of her mouth as though it was gum ... Another sheep approaches and lies next to her companion, wool-to-wool, and for a second they exchange what appears to be a knowing, mildly amused glance.'

Here's some more, and I promise that this will be the last example of the purple slush you will have to wade through when (or if) you read this book:

`The rain, which continued to fall confidently despite the promises of the landlord, gave us a sense of the mass of the oaks. From under their damp canopy, rain could be heard falling on 40,000 leaves, creating a harmonious pitter-patter, varying in pitch according to where the water dripped on to a large or a small leaf, a high or a low one, one loaded with accumulated water or not...'

De Botton does not teach us how to travel so much as how not to travel. He stops the hire car to look at an olive orchard but he can't be bothered to get out of the car and walk through it. He reads a brochure in a Madrid hotel, but is too timid to go out and rub shoulders with the locals in one of that city's many wonderful restaurants, preferring to dine on a bag of crisps in his bedroom, flicking over the pages of travel brochures.

In his section on Ruskin, De Botton demonstrates a fundamental misconception about art, which he seems to think can be reduced to words on paper. As a graduate of the University of Cambridge he seems to have a pretty impoverished knowledge of aesthetics. Has he never read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation? Has he never read Isaiah Berlin's The Roots of Romanticism? Has he never attended to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations or appreciated that abstracts (like `beauty') cannot be objectivised, let alone searched for?

De Botton is not a traveller; he is a package tourist, and not a very adventurous or imaginative one. He's the guy who asks the tour guide the question to which he already knows the answer. Can you imagine Bruce Chatwin describing clouds as seen from an aircraft window? That's what De Botton does. Can you imagine T.E. Lawrence comparing a view of the desert with what he saw in a travel guide? Can you imagine Hilaire Belloc sitting in his hotel room eating a bag of crisps instead of mixing with the locals? Or Turner staying inside because there was a nasty storm outside and he didn't want to get wet?

There were moments when I felt so impatient with the banalities of The Art of Travel that I felt like flinging the book across the room. The impression I came away with was that De Botton sees art not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. Through art, he can become an `expert', and as an expert he will be able to publish books, figure in television documentaries, become a celebrity and make lots of money. Art for art's sake? Travel to travel sake? Forget it: anything and everything De Botton sees he has to analyse to death.

But it is not only the banality, the purple patches and neo-Victorian writing that mar The Art of Travel: it lacks direction and unity. To the last page, I could never make up my mind whether it was about art or travel. Lifting pictures of art works from the Internet and printing them in black and white - or in this case grey and grey - simply didn't work for me. I looked at them, but only because I felt I had to. I felt they were an insult to the great artists who painted the originals.

De Botton has achieved what I would previously have thought impossible: he has managed to make art and nature boring. Even from a purely academic point of view, the book is pretty well useless as it has no bibliography. That is idle and unforgivable.

Basic Flying Instruction: A Comprehensive Introduction to Western Philosophy
Seven Stories from Blackwood's Magazine

So Alaine de Botton discovers on his trip to the Bahamas. I read and reread this book for such lines--sly takes on old chestnuts, in this case, Wherever you go, there you are.

Each chapter's title page includes a list of places discussed and the "guide" employed in that chapter. Chapter 1, "On Anticipation," lists Barbados and Hammersmith, London, as the places and author J.K. Huysmans as the guide. Another chapter, "On Eye-Opening Art," has Provence as its place and Vincent Van Gogh as its guide. (Oh, and there are pictures! Black and white, as befits the stately and philosophical tone.)

In listing his "guides," de Botton admits that one's perception of a place is always filtered--through paintings, literature, guidebooks, or a personal account by a recently returned friend. And in fact de Botton writes of "the curious phenomenon whereby valuable elements may be easier to experience in art and in anticipation than in reality."

This book will have you running to your notebook to copy down great line after great line. A travel writer myself, I recognize the Art of Travel as the perfect anti-guidebook, a guide about WHY we travel, and a meditation on how humankind's search for happiness -- "in all its ardour and paradoxes"-- is most poignantly revealed in how we travel.

I highly recommend this book for those who love travel and art (or both). Whether you're a traveller or a dreamer this book will have something for you. The book contains two themes. The first is travel itself. How we experience it, our memories of it, where we travel, and what we encounter. The other theme is about art and how it shapes our travels, how artists have travelled and viewed/dreamed of travel.

I found the book very original. The author juxtaposes his own experiences with those of famous artists, poets, and thinkers. Each chapter is devoted to an aspect of travel. Whether it be experiencing the sublime, disappointment, meeting the exotic, or the method of your transport.

The book is not overbearing and neither is the author. You can tell he has travelled, but this is not a "look at all the countries I have collected in my travels" type of read. His involvement is to introduce the same or contrasted feelings or experiences someone more famous has encountered.

To conclude, this book will have you up and ready to travel in no time, or at least, looking at the map dreaming about your next destination or adventures.

There's a certain self-effacing charm about Alain de Botton's writing that creeps up on you and which eventually becomes irresistible. Not one to shy away from big topics (love, philosophy, status, travel, Proust) he manages to bring you to fresh insights on each theme in a completely charming, highly readable fashion.

I've also seen him a few times on a BBC series about different philosophers, and the same charm is evident in person. He just seems like an altogether smart, together, sweet guy. It appears that he is quite successful, despite the disparate and commercially unpromising topics he chooses to write about. I hope that he is, because his seems to me to be a talent that deserves to be rewarded.

These essays are well-written, quirky, and rewarding.

It's always a nice thing when you read something spot on that's either close to what you believe or something you have experienced. De Botton is quite good at that, as in being able to phrase insights and observations you never realized were there bur are. I expected this one to be more about the actual travelling. To me the book should have been titled 'The Art of Looking At Things That Seem Unfamiliar, Bleak Or Uncommon At First Sight But Do Possess Certain Qualities If You Are Willing To Take Your Time To Look' but I guess that is a bit to long. Then again, it doesn't really matter for De Botton manages to make this one a breeze through read anyway, and while at it, actually gives you the idea you read something that mattered.

Rupert Smith, a retired Lt. General in the British Army, calls for a re-thinking of the use of force. His treatise is simply brilliant. The book begins with an excellent summary of the major shifts in military thinking that have taken place in the last 200 years: first with Napoleon and Clauswitz, then with Bismark and von Moltke. These "paradigm shifts" (as Smith refers to them) forced a strategic and tactical re-thinking of force given the political and technological changes of their day. It is time, Smith argues, for another paradigm shift.

According to Gen. Smith, the age of "industrial war" along the lines of World War II is long over. In fact, Smith points out, wars between modern nation states have been over since the end of the Second World War; however politicans and the military have been reluctant to adapt their way of thinking about force to the new reality. Citing conflicts in Algeria, Israel, Africa, Southeast Asia, Chechnya, the Balkans, and most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, Smith convincingly shows that the nature of warfare has changed - and therefore our understanding and use of force must also change.

Make no mistake - Smith at no point claims that force is unnecessary. Rather, the application of force and the consequences of its use need to be rethought. After reading his analysis and thinking about his recommendations, I whole-heartedly agree. I hope that politicans and field-grade officers read and digest his conclusions. The sooner we adopt our strategy and war-fighting criteria along this new paradigm, the better.

"We are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves . . . an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic (trade) of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us." -Winston Churchill, quoted in Inside Lebanon: Journey to a Shattered Land with Noam and Carol Chomsky
I think this quote pretty much sums up the "utility" of force. It enables violent states to steal from other nations.
I heard the general talking about his book on C-SPAN, and it wasn't really impressive. He kept dodging a question about the use of torture, but I'm glad the British military has at least condemned some of the U.S. military's behavior in the gulf.
People who identify with the military will probably enjoy Rupert's discussion of strategy and Napoleon and that sort of thing.
War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning
It will be good when the sun sets on the empires that England and the U.S. have inflicted upon the world.
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
And it will be good when we invest in better ways to structure the economies of the so-called "civilized" nations.
The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community (BK Currents), written by an Air Force veteran.
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war." - General Douglas MacArthur, from a 1951 speech quoted in Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence

See also:
Why We Fight
War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
Evil Empire - A Talk by Chalmers Johnson
Letters from Fort Lewis Brig: A Matter of Conscience
The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence

General Rupert Smith has written an essential introduction here to the problems and paradoxes of modern warfare. I recommend it very highly. I especially liked Smith's analysis that in today's wars information is much more important than firepower.

The book does have a few omissions. Most important, I felt it had too little to say on the role of natural resources, overpopulation, and environmental degradation in causing war and civil unrest around the world. There is a substantial argument to be made that the U.S. military has become little more than a global oil-protection service. Changing the American lifestyle from fossil-fuel to renewable energy sources could make a substantial contriubution to the peace and security of the world. Such a transition might well reduce U.S. economic growth; however, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Economic growth sounds great--a rising tide lifts all boats--but it is necessary to keep in mind how it is calculated. Economic growth is generally measured by GDP, which as a measure of well-being is so inaccurate as to be almost laughable. GDP is measured by counting up what is spent on various items. This works more or less OK if you're counting food bought by hungry people, but very poorly indeed if you're counting money spent on bombs or automatic rifles, or on parking garages for rich people's cars. GDP is not corrected for increasing population, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, or declining quality of life. More accurate measures of economic growth, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or Genuine Progress Indicator, tend to show that there has been little or no genuine economic growth in the U.S. since the 1970s. For more on this, see McKibben's book "Deep Economy," Daly's "Beyond Growth," Brian Czech's "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train," or Jared Diamond's "Collapse."

Hindsight is always going to be more clear than trying to predict the future, and in this book where General Smith traces the history of war from the Napoleonic to the current age it is no surprise that he is far more clear and insightful looking backward than he is in looking forward.

The major thesis of his book is that war has shifted from what he calls "War Between the People," typified by separate nation-states fighting till decisive victory on a distinct battlefield, to what he calls "War Amongst the People" which will feature conflict including non nation states, waged indefinitely and indecisively on an amorphous front that includes both physical lands and intangible ones such as the media.

The book is very strong in several regards. First, General Smith's elucidation of Clausewitzian strategy, as well as providing the historical backdrop for when, how and why it was developied, is simply first rate. The biggest lessons drawn from Clausewitz that are still relevant today are that force must be applied to achieve some pre-determined purpose (hence the "utility of force," it is not merely the destruction of your opponent), and the concept of the trinity of government, military and the people. The best way to defeat an enemy is to break this trinity. In War Between the People this could be done conceptually more simply by flat out destroying the enemy military or their government, or perhaps more elegantly by dissolving the people's allegiance to the policies of their government and military, more effective against a democracy such as North Vietnamese efforts to reinforce and inflame the anti-war movement. Second the book's military history from Napoleon to the end of the Cold War is truly outstanding, worth the price of the book itself.

Smith is certainly not alone in sensing a major shift in the type of wars we have found ourselves in for the past nearly two decades now, and in pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of our "Revolution in Military Affairs," more a techno-advertisement than a strategic realignment of our military forces based on an understanding of our current world and the permanence of human nature. In his new War Amongst the People the Clausewitzian trinity of government, military and people still exists, clearly and distinctly for state actors, but in a much more diffused and maleable way for non state actors such as terrorists. Therefore breaking their trinity becomes a much more confusing and difficult thing to achieve, -but none the less necessary- and much of the military theory for fighting the wars of the past are no longer applicable.

Unfortunately his prescriptions for how to fight our current and future wars, beyond the simple and now hopefully universally agreed upon maxim that your war must have a vision of peace you want to achieve by expending your blood and treasure, are complex and ultimately confusing. Due to being deployed to the Middle East and out of internet access for 6 months I have had to wait that long to write my review for this book, and can barely remember any of his concepts and suggestions for fighting and winning future wars, which doesn't bode well for someone trying to develop a new conceptual framework for our warriors and our society for facing the future. The biggest thing I do remember though is a much more coordinated effort needed between the military, the state department, aid groups, and especially the media. He also appears fatalistic that Wars Amongst the People are essentially intractable and will require a practically permanent peacekeeper presence like we have in the former Yugoslavia, where he commanded forces during the fighting, and developed and employed much of his thinking, and where his final chapters focus. (There is little direct application of this thinking to Iraq and Afghanistan.)

The Utility of Force is an excellent work nonetheless, and highly recommended for people trying to understand the current state of the world and what we can actually do to protect ourselves. For counterpoint the works of Lt. Col. Ralph Peters are suggested too.

Edit of 20 May 2007 to drop one link (reduntant to Master Gray) and add instead General Zinni's book on waging peace, our counterpart to the author of this book in terms of intellect, morality, and strategic gravitas.

I defer to the other reviewers on the bulk of the book. It can and should be required reading for some time to come.

Here is the one recommendation in the conclusion that really matters, and I paraphrase:

FROM THE BEGINNING, the national interests and desired outcomes must be considered by a fully integrated team of military and civilian experts with deep strategic, historical, cultural, geographic, and related knowledge, and the use of force must be planned in the context of the desired OUTCOME. The same and related teams must plan for the peace and see the entire program through to the desired END.

This is of course sensible, and not what the Americans did. General Shinseki's correct appreciation was over-turned by Paul Wolfowitz, a world-class liar living in a fantasy world. General Zinni was called a traitor. General Gavin was dismissed early because Haliburton was not done looting, and preppie Paul Bremer sent in to lose another $20 billion.

Here are other books I recommend, beginning with those from British authors that I consider as remarkable as this one:
Modern Strategy
The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose
Intelligence Power in Peace and War
Very Special Intelligence: The Story of the Admiralty's Operational Intelligence Centre 1939-1945
The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
The Future of Life
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition
The leadership of civilization building: Administrative and civilization theory, symbolic dialogue, and citizen skills for the 21st century

I imagine General Patraeus will have his own book one day. It's a pity all the flag officers (both US and UK) drank the kool-aid and let Cheney and his merry band of liars and dim-wits destroy the US Army first--for the price of a good tea, any one of us could have told them the lesson the British Army and other Armies have learned since time immemorial: it takes a big war force two years (for slow learners, five years) to re-learn counter-insurgency--by the time they do so, they have been hollowed out and neither the force nor its equipment is suitable for big war absent a complete re-build--but then, that would be the logical "end state" for Dick Cheney and the military-industrial complex: the White House has gotten the outcome it wanted, never mind blood, treasure, and spirit nor international legitimacy, the insolvency of the nation, and the deepening recession. For those that "matter," the profits have been properly banked in Dubai and elsewhere. So the final lesson from General Smith's book is this one: the planning must be open, public, and endorsed by national referendum. The utility of force, in my view, can no longer be entrusted to elites--the case must be made to the public, and only the public may validate the utlity of force. Mind the gap....

In "What is Life?" monograph, Schrodinger brilliantly enlightens us with the true concept of life science. He proposes what himself calls "a naive physicist's ideas about organisms." Years before the discovery of double helix structure of DNA, Schrodinger beautifully details how the huge volume of information is related to the structure of what he calls "aperiodic crystal" (what we currently call it "protein structure."

The ideas are still fresh and everybody who really wants to start the REAL and TRUE molecular biology must read this classic. It is astonishing to see how this great thinker and physicist had elaborated, very correctly and properly, to use the statistical tools in physics (statistical physics) to explain the fundamentals of life.

It is an absolute classic from a great legend. Please read and enjoy it.

Schroedinger, one of the great physicists of the 20th Century, applied the knowledge he gained in his own discipline to analyze human life. Based upon lectures that he gave in the 1940s, this brief book contains Schroedinger's fascinating speculations on the nature of life, several of which have proven prophetic (including the discovery of DNA). The reader comes away with the joy of having shared in the workings of a great mind.

Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the book is that it can be readily understood by persons relatively untrained in science or mathematics.

This is another great work of Erwin Schrodinger which gives an insight into the biology of life from a physicist's perspective that inspired scientists like; Francis Crick who discovered the structure of DNA, J.B.S. Haldane, and Roger Penrose. It is clear from this work and other books of Schrodinger that he was one of the few physicists who deeply thought of the inner most secrets of life. This book is divided into two parts: What's Life (7 chapters) and Mind and Matter (6 chapters).

The physicist's most dreaded weapon, the mathematical deduction can not be used for life because it is too complex to be accessible to equations. The orderliness required for the preservation of life does not come by the random heat motions of atoms and molecules, but statistical averages that provide order. Schrodinger asks a simple question; why is life made of so many atoms and not just a few. He offers three examples; higher magnetic fields, increase in molecular population and the error introduced into a reaction rate constant or any other physical parameter would be far too great if only few molecules are involved to form life. Hence orderliness, and of course evolution and diversity of life, requires very large population of molecules.

The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories; all existing objectively and all scientific knowledge is based on sense of perception and nonetheless the scientific views of material processes formed in this way lack all sensual qualities and can not account for the latter. Theories that are developed from scientific observations of experiments never account for sensual qualities. The sentient, percipient and thinking ego does not figure anywhere in our world picture, because it is itself the world picture. It is identified with the whole and not part of it. The physical world lacks all the sensual qualities that go to make the subject of cognizance. It is colorless, soundless, and impalpable. The world is deprived of everything that makes sense in its in relation to the consciously contemplating, perceiving, and feeling the subject; no personal god can form part of world model that has only became accessible at the cost of removing everything personal from it. God is missing from spacetime picture like sense of perception or ones own personality. Upanisads (Hindu Scripture) states that Atman = Brahman, the personal self equal the all comprehending eternal self. Consciousness never experienced in plural only in the singular, and plurality is merely a series of different aspect of one soul and one conscious produced by a deception (Maya). There is no multiplicity of minds; in reality and truth there is only one mind.

Before and after is not a quality of the world we perceive but pertains to the perceiving mind and don't imply the notion of space and time. After relativity, the notion of before and after reside on the cause and effect relationship. The general directedness of all happenings is explained by the mechanical or statistical theory of heat. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order changes to disorder but not disorder to order, and time travels in one direction from past to future, but not future to past. The statistical theory of time has a stronger bearing on the philosophy of time than theory of relativity. The latter presupposes unidirectional flow of time while statistical theory constructs from order of events.


My body functions according to laws of nature, but I direct body motions. The word "I" means to state that I who control the motion of the atoms and molecules according to the Laws of Nature. The uncertainty principle and the lack of causal connection in nature introduce certain features into physical reality. For example, we can not make any factual statement about a physical system without interacting with it which would change the physical state of the system. This explains why no complete description of any physical object is ever possible. These laws have pushed the boundary between the subject and object. In fact subject and object are only one, and no barrier exists. It is the same element that goes to compose my mind and the world. The situation is the same for every mind and its world, in spite of the unfathomable abundance of cross references between them. The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived.

The last chapter gives brief autobiographical sketches of Schrodinger translated by his granddaughter. Schrödinger was deeply philosophical with strong family: He loved and respected his parents. His strong interest in physics and Vedanta philosophy (one of the six schools of Hindu Philosophy) is apparent, but he shy's away from writing about his complex personal life that involved many women and numerous extramarital affairs.

1. Schrödinger: Life and Thought
2. Space-Time Structure (Cambridge Science Classics)
3. A Life of Erwin Schrödinger (Canto original series)
4. Erwin Schrödinger's World View : The Dynamics of Knowledge and Reality (Theory and Decision Library A:)
5. 'Nature and the Greeks' and 'Science and Humanism' (Canto original series)
6. Schrödinger's Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science)
7. Schrodinger's Science and the Human Temerament
8. Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality: Solving the Quantum Mysteries Tag: Author of In Search of Schrod. Cat
9. Statistical Thermodynamics
10. Science and Humanism, Physics in Our Time

What is Life? is an absolute classic. Schrodinger felt that life must be explainable by physics and chemistry, yet seemed to violate the normal behavior of entropy-- and he understood further that this was a remarkable wedge point to explore. He figured out the explanation: life is the result of evolution of genetic information, which selects for complex processes that by ordinary considerations would be very unlikely. He predicted that there must be a molecule capable of carrying the genetic information (incorrectly thinking it would be a protein.) His beautifully-written book was influential and timely. Within 4 years, Von Neumann elucidated the mechanisms involved in self-reproducing automata (illustrating his abstract discussion with a picture looking remarkably like DNA to the eyes of readers today); and within a decade, Watson and Crick grasped the structure of DNA. You should not read Schrodinger's book today as one of your first sources to understand life-- there has been remarkable progress in the 50 years since Watson and Crick-- but you should read it to gain appreciation for how science can be advanced when the time is ready and a wedge point, an apparent conflict between fundamental ideas, is analyzed.

The volume also includes another lecture by Schrodinger, Mind and Matter, which is historically interesting in another way. In Schrodinger's day, the state of understanding had not advanced to the point where it was possible to make as useful conjectures about the structure of mind as of life, and he accordingly felt "[mind] may well be beyond human understanding."

Readers interested in Schrodinger's book will also enjoy What is Thought?, published 2004. What is Thought? argues that mind must be explainable by computer science, that the fundamental issues are computational, and that there is again a wedge point: the question of how the workings of a computer, which are always purely syntactical, can correspond to meaning and understanding. The situation is parallel to the one that faced Schrodinger with respect to life in two respects: first, mind is the outcome of evolution, which has built thought processes that seem inconsistent with our standard science, and second, scientific research has advanced to the point where, if we focus on the wedge point, significant understanding is obtainable. What is Thought? brings to bear on the problem of mind core ideas from computational learning theory, complexity theory, and evolutionary computing, as well as molecular and evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and other areas. The result is a principled and concrete explanation, consistent with the vast array of available data, of how meaning, understanding, language, consciousness, and all the various aspects of mind arise from execution of an evolved computer program.

I'm wondering why scientists are allowed to give their opinion as scientists about topics they know nothing about as scientists. The beginning of the title ("What is Life") sounds like if Schrodinger can claim anything about the difference between mind and matter as a pure consequence of physics. Too bad, as the rest of the title might make you think that there will be some discussion about why and whether there might be a difference between mind and matter. What remains of mind when you stick to the physics? That would be a very nice question to think about, if only this was the topic of the book...but it's not what is done here.

This book opened my eyes. I am an educator and this happens to our children everyday. I would love to meet the author.

This little text is so very informative. The author expertly refutes the major arguments prevelant among the conservatives that our children are deficient. I am convinced.

I'm an educator who works with middle school children. This book was an excellent read and provided more understanding for me as I work with children. I highly recommend it to caring educators!!