Westerns Books

I am very satisfied with my recent order from Amazon.

The Book Of Massage is very educational and helpful!

I found the book to have very good detail. It enabled me to pick up the techniques of massage fairly quickly.

The book is informative with fine pictures giving every aspect of the description. The books gives the idea of the 'healing science', even to the layman for whom, massage is a new subject.

thanks,

Dr.Maulik Vyas

It is great knowledge of massage techniques for learner and trained MTs.
Pictures are very good and the matter has been dealt with expertly.
I enjoyed reading and learning new techniques of massage therapy.
The only thing I found different is nude client on table,which differs from draping rules defined by AMTA/National Board USA (That is draping of client as per applicable laws of MD/DC/VA) .

This book is intended for use between partners and close friends. It covers traditional Swedish Massage, Shiatsu, and reflexology. If you want detailed massage sequences on how precisely to give a massage to a close friend this book will do it. The photographs are excellent as are the drawings.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.

Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.

Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:

1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2. Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.

Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.

Epistçmç is scientific knowledge. Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.

There are two circumstances in rhetoric.

1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.

The Poetics

Poetry appeals to human passions and emotions. Powerful beautiful language and metaphor really appeal to emotion. This idea really disturbed Plato, who takes on Homer in the Republic. Plato thought that early Greek poetry portrays a dark world; humans are checked by negative limits like death. Tragedy has in it a character of high status brought down through no fault of his own. Plato says this is unjust. Republic is about ethical life and justice. It starts with the premises that might makes right and then moves onto the idea much like modern religions that justice comes in the afterlife. Plato hates the idea that in tragedy bad things can happen to good people. He wanted to ban tragedy because he found it demoralizing.

Aristotle's Poetics is a defense against Plato's appeal to ban tragedy. Tragedy was very popular in Greek world so Aristotle asks can it be wrong to ban it? Yes, it is wrong thus he decides to study it. Plato says Poetry is not a technç because the poets are divinely inspired. Aristotle disagrees Poetics is a handbook for playwrights. Mimçsis= "representation or imitation." Plato uses it in speaking of painting, thus art is imitation. Another meaning is to mimic, like actors mimicking another person. Plato and Aristotle use it to mean psychological identification like how we get absorbed in a movie as if the action were real, eliciting emotions from us. We suspend reality for a while. Aristotle says this is natural in humans; we do this as children, we mimic. If imitation is important for humans then tragic poetry is worthwhile for Aristotle to study.

Definition of tragedy- "Through pity and fear it achieves purification from such feelings. This is a famous controversial line. Katharsis= "pity and fear" thus the purpose of tragedy is to purge katharsis. Katharsis can also mean purification or clean. There is a debate if it means clarification, through which we can come to understand katharsis. Aristotle thinks tragedy teaches us something about life. Tragedy is an elaboration on Aristotle's idea that good or virtuous people sometimes get unlucky and in the end, they get screwed. Tragedy shows this so we can learn to get by when life screws us. The whole point of tragedy is action over character. Action is the full story of the poem like the Iliad. Character is only part of the action.
Aristotle distinguishes between poetry and history. Poetry is concerned with universals, history is concerned with particulars.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

"Tourists are learning that the image of the terrible Turk is false, created to a great degree by it unfriendly neighbors. Turks are quick to remind visitors that, surrounded by Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Greece, they're not living in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood."

This is a direct quote.

It sounds like they're trying to say that the surrounding countries are painting an incorrect negative image of Turkey. Which is amusing, since he listed both Greece and Armenia there, which were both targeted by Turkey. Either this writing staff has no idea what they're writing and is just happy to sell books, thinking no one will double check the info, or they're Racist and opinionated. Either way, I wouldn't trust the info in here even as a rough guide on where to go.

This is a great book for those first timers to Europe. Those that don't know what to expect. It tells you what to pack, how to create an itinerary, booking flights, how to get around Europe (train, car, and boat), how to find places to stay, how to make phone calls, how to interact with the locals, etc.

This is NOT a guide book. It is a "how to enjoy yourself in Europe" book.

The previous reviewer should have taken this into account before bad mouthing it.

This book does give some pointers about the best trips one can take given certain timeframes, but does not go into detail about everything there is to see about Europe. He includes his favourite places. For more detail, pick up Rick Steve's Best of Europe 2004, or one of his country specific guide books.

After spending several months a year for 25 years touring Europe, Rick knows what you need to know about enjoying yourself there. No need to make the same mistakes, he tells you how to avoid the pitfalls.

Rick Steves' Europe Through the Back Door presents a philosophy that many tourists seem to lack: When in Europe, ACT like you're in Europe! This book is aimed towards those travelers that just can't quite seem to ever escape the U.S. no matter where they travel.

Rick presents a whole host of tips for seeing a Europe beyond the standard guided bus tours and airline deals. His years of experience go into his writing, giving often insightful and funny tips from sleeping overnight in the train station (he recommends sleeping in the first-class lounge to be among a higher class of hobo) to the best way to wash your clothes in the hotel sink.

This book is not all about travelers caught in a pinch, however. There's also great advice for finding accomodations in during busy season, picking the right hotel/room, and finally finding those gems--great spots in Europe that no other traveler seems to know about.

This book is not so much a guide to specifics as it is a guide to travel philosophy. Steves encourages the reader to immerse themselves in the local culture, and offers advice for the reader not sure how to do so.

Those looking for a country-specific guidebook should look somewhere else, but they should also keep this book handy to really get a feel for what Europe truly is and was.

Rick does an okay job of giving a quick overview of Europe, but sometimes forgets to "just inform" and tries to get all poetic and fancy. His description of Rothenburg does not inform me about the place, just about the wind and the leaves and his acid trip. This book will annoy you with its sporadic bursts of cheap thesaurus prose.. Rick is just not a good writer. Otherwise he does a good job of letting you know of not-so-touristy things to do in EU. The types of things he suggests are walking around and smelling things, sitting down and drinking a beer, buying a chunk of cheese and eating it on a park bench while people-watching. I don't see 18-30 year olds getting much from this book. Younger travellers might want to do more than just smell a place and get tipsy.
His writing tone seems biased; he's opinionated and sometimes makes me feel as if he gets paid to advertise shops and attractions.
Buy this book for a general overview of an Euro Trip, not as a travel guide. For more detailed info, grab a Lonely Planet guidebook.
In an effort to cater to ALL audiences, Rick, as well as oher mass market writers, tries to create ONE book for ALL types of people. Any given traveller will be interested in only 15% of this book, and toss the rest aside. The backpacker will use 15%. The high class big baller will use 15%. The middle class two week vacationer might use 10%. I would prefer to pay more for a book JUST FOR ME. (Mr. Backpacker)

This book makes you want to go to Europe.Now.Just get on the plane and GO!
I wish I had read this eleven years ago on our first trip to Italy.Since that time I have travelled to Europe on business many times and I have to agree with Rick Steves that no one ever says " every time I go to Europe I pack more".
His travel philosopy addresses peoples fears and insecurities when they are travel..."I won't have a certain piece of clothing,object when I might want it...better take it just in case" or "a less expensive hotel may be dirty ,unsafe...I know this luxury hotel will bust the bank, but its worth it for piece of mind." That kind of thing.Rick Steeves describes clean,charming hotels and pensiones which are centrally located and much less expensive than "luxury" properties. his restaurants are not dives, but great trattorias,atmospheric ristorantes popular with the locals.He is wonderfully opinionated about what to see,when to go...like having a best friend who lives there. No guidebook( and I have read them all) combines such practical advice with a travel philosophy which is positively liberating.This is especially true for older travellers who do not want to backpack,hostel, and who thought they had to stay in the "best" places, and wear a different outfit everyday. Our next trip to Italy will be with one carry-on bag each, staying in Rick Steves suggested family run pensiones and hopping on and off trains between destinations. We feel 20 years younger(and we will be 20 pounds lighter,too)

Rich Steves gives the best advice you can get on travel in Europe. He was right on the money with all that he suggested as far as rooms, price and what to see. We loved this book! We took it with us to Germany, Switzerland and Denmark. While doing a walking tour of the quaint little town of Bacharach, Germany, we saw a young girl walking along with the SAME BOOK! She had the same kind of praises we had. We plan to buy the next version for our next European trip.

This book was very helpful with lots of useful tips on travel through Europe. We took the advice on several of the hotels and were very pleased with the recommendations.

Ricke Steves always gives excellent advice to the budget traveler. His advice is comprehensive and and at times humorous.

If Rick Steves has a book for your destination(s), then do yourself a favor - buy it. You do not need any other guide for your trip. We've just returned from a trip through much of western Europe (London, Paris, Milan, Florence, Venice, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona and Brugge) and this guide was indispensable.

We avoided long lines to visit museums in Venice and Florence, lived in great local hotels and dined in non-touristy and cheap restaurants serving amazing local food. We also had Frommer's with us at the beginning of the trip but we threw it half way through the trip - it was too bulky and did not add any value to our experience.

Rick Steve's conversational style is non-intimidating and makes for a much more interesting read compared to the cut-and-dry, facts only style of other guides. All guides will have some out of date information but this guide is very current. In fact, a tour-guide with a company in Rome that is recommended by Rick Steves' told us that while other publishers just call them every year to verify that they are still in business, only Rick Steves' company actually sends someone to take part in the tours to make sure that the experience is still consistent with the description in the book.

This book is a must have for your Europe trip.

Rick Steves' does a great job taking you to the hot spots and off the beaten path. Has a ton of info on each area (ie phone numbers, addresses, names, etc).

This textbook was required for my History 10a class at Harvard (Steven Ozment is the professor for the course). In addition to the scholarly explanations and descriptions of early European history, the book comes with a CD with plenty of primary source documents. If that is not enough, there also many excerpts of primary sources scattered throughout each chapter.

I placed the order the book, but unfortunately, the text book was wrong one. Although I tried to contact this seller to return the book and have it refund as soon as I received the book, nobody responded to me. Eventually, I still keep this book and did not get refund. I'm afraid that this seller is not so good as everyone might tihnk when it comes to trouble shooting.

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

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

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

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

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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