Westerns Books

The best first and/or last step into Friedrich Nietzsche's thought. It reads quickly and gives a fair cross-section of his writings chronologically: just before TSZ, right after his "free spirit" epoch, and Bk. V from around the time of Beyond Good & Evil. Only a shame that a Hollingdale translation is not available in English.
And now some buffoonery from yours trulery.

Down Going Limerick

Zarathustra is now down going
And so he speaks in rhyme:
The madman said, "God is dead.
Where is he? Is it we who killed a lie?"

Now I Exhort You to Love What is Most Distant, to
Dionysus Against the Crucified.

Burn Your Ships and move to Inland Deserts
Onward--To the Great Noontide,
For The Twilight of the Idols Approaches,
And The Overman's Time is Well Nigh.

At Last Behold the Higher Man--
Whom With Hammer Doth Philosophize:
"You yourself are this Will to Power,
and nothing else besides!"

Now Completely Drunk With Laugher,
And Unafraid to Die
The Higher Man Declares: Amor Fati!
Finally Dionysus Will Fly!

Thus Spoke Zarathustra in His Down Going
Of the Innocence of Becoming from on High.
"Together, Apollo and Dionysus unite
Against the Crucified."

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

The Sorcerer unpursed his lips
laying his flute beside him, and sighed.

Nietzsche's Die Froliche Wissenschaft may be a great and brilliant book precisely because it is impossible to say exactly what it is about. On the one hand, we are given the Nietzsche who repudiates the assumptions of Christian morality and German Nationalism, as well as the familiar Nietzsche who rejects dogmatism and rationalism, but we are also given an unusual Nietzsche who discusses the tremendous potential of the theoretical and physical sciences. There are also profound discussions on women in the Gay Science which break with his otherwise overt misogyny. Additionally, Nietzsche provides very lucid repudiations of all forms of nihilism (aphorisms which are often overlooked by contemporary commentators who wish to write Nietzsche off as a nihilistic thinker). Nietzsche also introduces a number of his most important philosophical ideas in the Gay Science, namely the notion of ressentiment, slave and master morality, 'God is Dead,' and the eternal recurrence of the same. This is a hugely important opus in the history of modernity, and it is an immensely pleasurable and satisfying read.

For the admirers of Nietzsche and those who love to read him, "The Gay Science" is somehow their FAVOURITE BOOK. In this work the hughe, great German philosopher and psychologist (honour to whom it deserves!) confronts us with a rather fleet-footed, almost "dancing" way of writing about his eternal themes that never ever have left his thoughts, his way of thinking and his brilliant pen.
HERE is a work that is EXTREMELY RICH, OF GREAT VALUE:
* For the FIRST TIME he announces the death of God;
* For the FIRST TIME his thoughts about eternal rebirth are formulated;
* He introduces the reader into his theory of "THE DANGEROUS LIFE": the author even recommends this to his readers (see too: "Thus spake Zarathustra", "Beyond Good And Evil" and his splendid "Antichrist").
At the same time I have to say that this however fabulous work, is a VERY CONTROVERSIAL writing of Nietzsche. At many places in the book he is dealing with - what I will call here "DELICATE THEMES" as there are for example "THE JEW" and "THE WOMAN". Passages where every reader of these days (early 21st century) cannot read those paragraphs without frowning the eyebrows, not to say will be "feeling uncomfortable with".

Now, quite REMARKABLE is that "THIS FAVOURITE" was written in the years 1881-1882, so about the same period the author "created" his "Zarathustra"! Knowing this AND knowing the subjects of Nietzsche, I cannot say elsehow - about the writer as a man as well as about his eternal themes - that right here "we" meet/deal with the greatest of all contrasts in his entire, well-filled life and work. In fact "THE CONTRAST" which cannot be found elsewhere in his oeuvre, is the "HEAVY PROPHETISM" of his "Zarathustra" versus "The Gay Science" of which the character is to be defined "RATHER AIRY, LIGHT-HEARTED AND PLAYFUL".
BUT: do NEVER let this contrast be the (false) reason not to read this beautiful "product", ON THE CONTRARY!!! No more, no less it is showing THE REAL GENIUS of the author (there exist/are/were far more less than one would like to think or thinks!). Without any doubt this PHENOMENON OF CONTRAST must be seen, interpreted as the REAL, IMMENSELY GREAT TALENT of Nietzsche: as well concerning the literary point of view as to his INEXHAUSTIVE, UNLIMITED CAPABILITY to play with words and thoughts. JUST AS IF it were the most common thing on earth to do so, while in fact this GENIUS (noblesse oblige!) is playing, juggling with the most difficult items of philosophy, psychology, even theology, in a way ... it can be read by all.

ESPECIALLY HERE, ABOUT "THE GAY SCIENCE", this has to be said all over again - whether one is PRO or CONTRA Nietzsche: the phenomenon of his GENIUS will and can never be denied. It is INTELLECTUAL HONESTY that makes, requires one to consider him that like. The book is AGAIN one of his "creatings" that is very well readable AND that will be re-read. RECOMMENDED FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND REASON, MY WHOLE BEING!

It has to be said that from all of Nietzsche's works, the "Gaya Scienza" has to be the most under-rated of Nietzsche's works.

(It is in the "Gay Science" in which the prelude of the now famous proclaimation "God is dead" first appears)

With his usual "aphoristic" style, Nietzsche creates delightfull read, his message is both profane and profound.

It's a book I recomend to all...

If you have heard this phrase and never done a critical reading of Nietzsche you may understandably be confused! He is saying the authority (moral, scientific, etc.)previuosly accorded "god" (also religious institution)belongs properly to man.

"Man is the measure" and, thanks to historical movements like Romanticism and the Enlightenment, we are free, rational (lower case 'r') beings not dependent on "god" for our grounding. Hence, "God is dead."

Disclaimer, there are numerous readings of Nz, I think this reading is accurate, especially when contextualized, but...I did learn Nz from a positivist.

This book was for schooling. The book has a print and font that is hard for me to read. It's somewhat condensed and packed into little squared off paragraphs on each page. The book also is not a clear read. I have to read things a few time to grasp what the writer is saying. I do not recommend this book at all. But more than likely, if you're looking for this book, it's a required book for school, so you have no choice.

This book was a requirement for a class. It was easy to understand and apply. It comes with key terms in the margins for easy review and description. The chapters begin with a learning objective and concludes with a summary of each objective. Each chapter is filled with detailed information and highlights corporations and how they have applied each concept. I would recommend it for anyone constructing an organization or for those wishing to change management styles. It also, has a CD Rom that is incredible.

The previous reviewer is probably correct about the audience for this book. That said, if you've come through the American academic system, at least in the humanities or social sciences, in the last 30 years or so, this is a fascinating account of the way particularly American concerns and politics led to a "structural misunderstanding," a selective appropriation and transformation of French thinkers and their ideas.

And if you think Sokal has had the last word, I'd recommend Latour's Reassembling the Social, where he draws upon the Science Wars to upset fundamental approaches in the social sciences. The Science Wars were vital for social theory, just not in the way Sokal would like.

If someone was not aware of the controversy surrounding the works of philosophers and literary critics going by the names of Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze, Slavoj Zizek, Michel Foucault, and Alain Badiou and decided to read samples of their work, it might be interesting to see if such a reader would find them as "radical" as they are sometimes portrayed in both the academic and popular press. Such a neutral and isolated reader who is not embedded in the community of experts might extract an interpretation of these works that would be very different from the usual ones currently expounded. Being free from the hype and controversy might allow such an individual to give a fresh interpretation or new paradigm, and one that might in fact have didactic utility. In addition, it would be very interesting to see the reaction of these philosophers and their followers to this interpretation/paradigm. Would they object to it with the assertion of the impossibility of "neutrality"? Or would they view as normal, as being yet another example of the tensions and "oppositions" that are embedded in every text?

If one believes in the wide scale proliferation of the works of these philosophers, as the author of this book clearly does, it might be difficult to find such a reader. The author portrays "French theory" as a body of works, ideas, or texts that have seeped into every facet of American culture, both academic and non-academic. His evidence for this however is very meager and in fact purely anecdotal. This perhaps should not be surprising, for a sound statistical study of the influence of "French theory" would not be forthcoming from someone who stands in opposition to things scientific. But it is a supreme irony that those in the scientific community, particularly those who cheered after the successful culmination of the "Sokal hoax", also do not study the impact of "French theory" from a rational, scientific perspective. Instead, very cursory summaries of "French theory" are given, coupled with selected quotations that they feel support their case of its degrading and anti-scientific bias.

In spite of the author's refusal or inability to present a case for the widespread influence of "French theory" he does introduce the reader to some of the works of the French literary theorists along with short histories and biographies of these theorists and a few of their followers. Anyone who was in the academy during the 1980's and 1990's no doubt has vivid memories of the controversies going on at the time with "politically correct" thinking, the Sokal hoax, and the book by Alan Bloom widely discussed and debated. Many viewed "French theory" as an epistemological black plague that must be stamped out without mercy in order to protect "naïve" impressionable students and the scientific enterprise. Others viewed it as an invitation to revel in a kind of literary Dionysian ecstasy, to become "intoxicated at the prospect of never hitting bottom" to quote the Derridean translator Gayatri Spivak. Others, dubbed the "neoconservatives" by the author and by the academic guru Stanley Fish, felt that it was proof of the decadence of liberalism and the American "Left." But here lies another irony with all these groups: they all seem to take on the attributes of the very thing that deconstructionists describe: they all seem to inhabit their own "logospheres" with each one completely convinced of its apodictic certainty, of possessing the legitimate metanarrative, and having as its purpose the total subjugation of the other "logospheres" to its hegemony.

The author rightfully takes issue with the degree to which American academics and their students have understood "French theory". Few it would seem have taken on the enormous time commitment involved to master its intricacies and historical context. In the introductory pages he makes clear just what he means by "French theory" and in the early chapters one gets the definite impression that the literature departments in the United States were "ripe" for an inculcation of "French theory." But regardless of the intellectual content of "French theory" it is perhaps a compliment that American culture is receptive to new ideas, no matter how alien they may appear at first glance. If American society went overboard with "French theory" it was because of its possibilities of being a guide to making sense out of things, as a tool that competed with structuralism. The deconstructionists however did not mean this to happen, argues the author, and any set of procedures to that end would be their anathema. Popular culture even got in on this distortion, the author quoting the case of the Hollywood movie "The Matrix" and its incorrect exploitation of Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacre et Simulations."

But one could also argue that even a "misunderstanding" of "French theory" could be taken as proof of its influence. After all, it would not be the first time that "surface readings" have resulted in substantial philosophical, literary, or political movements. And the Sokal hoax could be interpreted as an example of what some cognitive scientists call conceptual blending, as an expansion (deliberate or not) of a text to make it say something that is similar to another text. The concepts of quantum gravity do not bear much resemblance to those in hermeneutics, but they can easily be made to resemble them by this blending of concepts. Such a blend may be a farce to some, and from a scientific perspective it certainly is, but for a "neutral" reader it might actually be entertaining or poetic to a certain degree. In this respect Sokal may have done more harm than good for the scientific community, in that he showed how easy it is to "corrupt" a text, even a scientific one, and make it express concepts that are very similar to another one, no matter how "irrational" the latter is. He thus may have inadvertently presented an example of the flexibility of scientific discourse, which in the traditional view is "tighter" in its interpretation and demands a high degree of mental discipline for its understanding.

The author ends the book with an exaltation of French theory in its ability to "decipher" the "operations of power" and its "theoretical grasp of the world." This can only be done he says by extracting it from the academy and the hands of professional commentators. Oddly enough, he refers to the risk of taking it on, and expresses hope that it will "restore life to life." Taking a swipe at the capitalist marketplace and all of its (supposed) vicissitudes, French theory will according to the author spare us of the capitalist logic and consequent cynicisms. In asserting this he is definitely of reactionary status, and has his work cut out for him if he is to stymie or disrupt the flow of technical and scientific advance taking place at the present time. At least for this reviewer, it is difficult to see how the rhetorical constructions of Derrida & Co. could significantly halt this advance, and it really should not attempt to.

I bought this for my mother based on the review, figuring if she didn't like it, I would. She is a highly educated person, but wasn't familiar with the topic, and I thought it would introduce her to some of the theory that I use, etc. and give her some kind of entry into my academic world.

No dice - she found that you have to already be familiar with the topic to get anything out of this. After reading it, I agree. I found it wholly fascinating, but can understand why someone else who is not in this environment would be lost. The writer makes many assumptions regarding the reader - it's NOT an introduction by any stretch of the imagination.

That being said, it's a good book.

The seller sent the right book out and I received it in time for my class

Very satisfied with the transaction.

This is without a doubt the worst textbook I have ever used. It shares a spot with Triola's Statistics book (which is equally awful.) This book is difficult to read, totally non-entertaining ( despite the authors attempts at creative writing); a complete failure. For example, one question asks for an explanation of Trade balance. That term does not exist in this book. Trade deficit balance is what the authors were referring to, but you have to read every last word of the chapter to understand that one subject. Nothing is itemized, nothing is easy to locate, everything is cryptic and hidden. The authors have produced a confusing, convoluted book which only makes learning Economics more difficult.

After having seen the film "Quivers" about de Sade with Geoffrey Rush, I was intrigued and wanted to learn more about the writer by reading his writing. The guy is obsessed with sodomy--it gets tiresome. His writing, though intelligently presented, is eclipsed by his incredibly juvenile and obsessive sensibilities. Not a favourite tome.

He is a freak and that is why I like his writing.
What a life this guy led.

As one of the introductory authors mentioned "that those who read know of Sade, but very few ever actually read Sade." I was this person until I finally read this book. My one complaint is that prior to this I had never read Sade, so reading the introduction was a bit daunting. I didn't fully understand their references, those from his literature or historical. So if this is actually your first book of Sade's, or any of the others from this publisher, skip the introduction and read it at the end. The introductory essays seem to be written from the perspective of someone that expects their readers to be fairly well versed in Sade, a terrible thing if you never read Sade until now. So read them at the end and it won't ruin anything for you, rather they will enhance the work for you upon reading them in the end.

I will say this about the introductory material though, the section with the historical time-line was superb. I found it very interesting as well as useful. I have a couple other editions of De Sade's works and this one appears to be the best by far, aside from the fact it's not very friendly from a portable stand-point, but the writing/translations seem better than some others I've come across.

I would still say Sade is quite the controversial author and I've been getting into books of that nature as of late. As I am also currently reading Mein Kampf as I write this. I think a vast amount of people have opinions on these kinds of authors, but have never read their works. De Sade, for example, I think is typically unjustly demonized by a great many people. Hitler is a little more justified in being demonized, but I still think people should read his book before they start to exult some opinion on the person in detail. Sade, on the other hand, is little more complex and less obvious. His main problem is that he wrote Justine and in 18th century thinking, that is a grave enough sin in itself. Not so in the 20th century, though I don't think sadistic pleasure has fully outdone Sade yet, because he set a pretty strong precedent. Though, if he was going around doing the things he wrote about to women in "Justine," his demonization would be far more justified. As it is, he was involved with one girl, that was apparently willing at first, but changed her mind later. However, what was done is nothing compared to what he writes about or what is done to people nowadays, of course in that era, it was probably seen as far worse and shocking.

Either way, the French government went through lengths to try and destroy his works, but thankfully for those astute readers they are here for us to enjoy, or be reviled by, as it is up to the reader to decide. I stress that it is up to the reader, opinions on works not being read are useless in my point of view, all you can merely say at that point is that "it is not something that interests me," but one should not delve into a conversation about the work in question!

The first text is "Philsophy in the Bedroom," and what an interesting work that is. It is a mixture of philosophy, politics, and gratuitous sex. I will admit the homosexuality brought up in the writing caught me off guard at first, for it was unexpected. I typically do not go after that sort of writing, but the philosophical aspect is what kept me turning the pages. Though I must admit my own general deviancy, because some of the scenes were quite well done when the characters were not philsophizing. The part I struggled with though were the political discussions, I'm not an avid follower of politics in the 20th & 21st century, so I know quite a bit less about historical politics, unfortunately. I think a lot of the political discussions taking place between the characters focused on politics of that era (and are very specific to France), so any student of historical politics will likely find this vastly fascinating. The discusions on philosophy, such as the philosophy of crime leading to true freedom is quite a bit more interesting to me as I am more interested in philosophy in general. (Not that Sade has truly convinced me to go out and commit criminal acts by any means.) It shows that Sade was very well thought out in his writings because he makes fairly convincing arguments, though in terms of liberation, I believe it is up to the person. If you choose to live by such societal restrictions and your inner inhibitions coincide with the populace then you are free by your own point of view. If you find these things extremely limiting, then you are not free. I suspect Sade found societal normalcy a trapping that he sought to escape, thus he had a far different view on criminal acts.

The next two sections were relatively short, especially the discussion between a Priest and a Dying Man, which is essentially a satirical work. It clearly shows the lack of love Sade has for the church. Since I essentially agree with this sentiment, I had no problems with this, but those people out there who are religious may have an issue with this. However, I can't see the devoutly religious enjoying Sade's work and sexual vulgarity in the least to begin with. Next we have "Marie du Franval", also known as "Incest" from another publisher. This story is quite different than some of his other works, it's not nearly as explicit, but it does cross one of the more extreme taboo lines between father and daughter. Interestingly it does have a fairly unhappy ending for his main character who ends up losing what he loves most. A curious ending for Sade, since Sade preaches full liberty in most of his stories (regardless of who it would hurt). Perhaps this was merely written creatively to switch up his usual works, a break from the norm and to show, as an author, he can work outside of his comfort zone (so to speak).

The final part of this collection is the great apex of Sade's works. This is one of his most well known works and flows in conjunction, to a degree, with "Juliette." Here we have "Justine" the work that was Sade's undoing and got him put in prison, but made his works live on in infamy. This was, personally, my favorite tale in this entire collected works. That opinion, of course, may change as I read more, but so far I am summarily impressed. Justine has the greatest story and best blend of demented sex and philosophy in all the book. I can see why they saved this until the end. Justine is a lost child who seeks to guard her virtue above all other things. However, she is thrust through a sequence of very unfortunate circumstances and is debauched in some of the worst ways imaginable. However, all of her captors seem to be more than just a lout who is merely exacting pleasure for no reason. No, these characters a typically well educated, some are wealthy, and think about the philosophy and motivations of their particular desires. Not only do they think about their internal motivations, they are also happy to expound on this at length to their captives! The pinnacle of this is by far when she is taken captive by the monks, and I won't ruin it for anyone, but I'm sure this particular section is what did Sade in. Justine can never seem to "get saved" but rather goes from clutches to clutches of various captors, when all she wants is to live a wholesome life that she can be proud of. This will never be the case for her, and she is very disillusioned with life by the end. In the end the reader feels it is a very tragic tale over all. However, we'll see a wholly different perspective with her sister Juliette.

A lot of people see the sadism and the lascivous sex as the trademark of Sade's work, others walk away having a different perspective on life in general. I feel I am one of the latter, because I had never particularly thought of the philosophy of commiting crimes. While some of the sexual deviancy is very strong, I felt I could stomach them better because they were written (of course doing a lot of this stuff in real life is very illegal, and some would likely kill a person), but if you are particularly weak hearted then this may be a text to avoid. All some people want to read are the sex scenes and they want to skip the philosophy, this is probably a lot easier to pull off. I would say the works are typically about half and half in terms of philosophy versus sex, and I found the mixture is really what kept me turning the pages. I always wanted to find out what the next antogonist of vices had in store for me next, and how would Justine react to that particular philosopher! All in all, I would recommend this great work, but I realize that this is surely not a work for everyone, so if what I've said appeals to you, read it, if not, don't read it.

While it is interesting how the Marquis works in his philosophy (about 30 pages of orgy, around the same length of the most well-endowed man reading aloud from a political pamphlet one of them just happended to pick up on the way, followed about 30 more pages of orgy and so on), the desired effects are accomplished: the reader is left satisfied on the intellectual, philosophical, and yes, sexual levels.

As for Justine, one can definitely feel for the main character and itch to read Juliette, a wonderful companion which is also available here at Amazon. Some of Sade's descriptions are not for the weak at heart though, but that's part of life and the risk you take in leafing through a book like this.

I didin't really know a thing about actual libertinage before I read this book, but that certainly isn't the case now! I had only expected to be enlightened on a half-way intellectual level; I bought this book without considering the possibilites of the content suggested by the title.

Sade's refreshing view of sex and world-view (which ranges from indifferent to - surprise - "sadistic" in every sense of the word) was indeed way ahead of his time. While you probably won't agree whole-heartedly with him, he definitely gives the reader something to think about as far as the darker side of the human mind is concerned. Enjoy!

In one of the introduction essays in this collection, the translators write that those who read know of de Sade, but so few of those have actually read any of his work. People know who the Marquis de Sade is. He's referenced constantly in film, TV, and literature, and it's always some childish, snickering S & M reference. If his work was simply for shock value, it would have long been forgotten about. This is a man of ideas and philosophy. A terrifying vision, no doubt, but a unique and fascinating one, for those who can take it. This is an excellent compliation, including the complete version of Justine, the excellent Philosophy in the Bedroom, the hilarious Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man, and the superb Eugenie de Franval, one of de Sade's most respected short stories. Grove Press (who also put out Henry Miller's banned work) has also Juliette, the companion piece to Justine, and The 120 Days of Sodom and other writings as well. This book is the best of the three, in terms of its content (even thought Sodom's prose is much better than Justine. Justine is a more thought out book). It is a difficult read, and it's terrifying to be in de Sade's universe. But he also displays a dark humour (especially in Philosophy and Eugenie) that most people never give him credit for. And as one reviewer noted, the movie "Quills", while entertaining, is historically inaccurate. De Sade did die in Charnenton, but nothing like it was in the film. He died quietly in his sleep. Read this man's work. We're lucky to have these works, as most of his work was destroyed....

This is a good and comprehensive book if you are taking any 17th and 18th century philosophy courses. There are helpful intorductions beore each philosopher which give a bit of background on them as well as briefly summarize their main theories.

This item came fast and in great condition! Thanks! LOVED doing business with you!

Good work, thanks for delivering a great product in a timely fashion.

The fourth edition claims to have these advantages: it includes (1) a selection from Rousseau (2) additional material from Locke's Essay and (3) a new translation of the Meditations.

(2) consists of a short chapter on faith and reason. In exchange, we've lost II.11, on abstraction. Since there's little material from Book III, and nothing from III.vi, it's very hard for the reader to make sense of Berkeley's extended attack on abstract ideas in the introduction to the Principles.

Re. (3): Inexplicably, the editor has decided to replace John Cottingham's standard 1986 translation of the Meditations with a `new' translation by Laurence Lafleur, first published in 1951. Perhaps the editor had no choice, but it seems disingenuous to present this as an improvement.

Moreover, the third edition included a crucial selection from Kant's first Critique (the transcendental deduction); this has been deleted.

This is a big step down from the third edition.

I don't usually like anthologies and rarely teach from them -- I tend to prefer a primary text approach, partly because it allows students to see the development of ideas in their full context and because I expect philosophy students to be interested in developing their personal library of philosophy. This volume, however, is an exception and I've been using this volume for several years (and three separate editions) to teach my "History of Philosophy: 17th and 18th Century." Since I try to cover quite a bit in the course (empiricism, rationalism, social contract theory, transcendental philosophy -- in the works of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Pascal, Berkeley, Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Kant), but don't have the time to read everything by every thinker, this volume is almost perfect. It has almost everything I cover and includes both good brief introductions and fairly broad excerpts from each thinker. There is enough, at least, to illustrate the general approach and broad themes and key issues from most every thinker it includes. I've looked at a few other anthologies of Modern philosophy and they are usually either too specific (e.g. focused on 17th but not 18th century philosophy) or too broad and narrow in their coverage. This one is just right, and would be an excellent volume to get for an orientation to the basic problems of modern philosophy that sets the stage for both 19th Century continental thinkers like Hegel and Schopenhauer and Marx and Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, as well as for 20th century developments in both analytic (that picks up from Hume and to a lesser degree Kant and largely bypasses the German Idealist movement) as well as continental philosophy (in Heidegger, Sartre, etc.).

One quibble: I do wish there was more from Rousseau -- the latest volume has excerpts from the Social Contract and while that may be his most historically important work it doesn't show as clearly as some of his other works his distinctive approach to thinking -- that does not fall clearly under a rationalist or empiricist label. To give a better flavor of Rousseau I supplement this volume with Hackett's translation of the Second Discourse (On the Origins of Inequality).

Mortimer Adler is one of my favorite philosophers because; he can take complex philosophical ideas and make them understandable for the non-philosopher. This is a great skill that few philosophers posses and one of the reasons why ordinary people do not read philosophy. In this book, Adler distills Aristotle's thoughts on metaphysics, ethics, and political philosophy. My major interest is in political philosophy, how do humans create a better society to live in? Aristotle builds a case for the need all of us to strive to live the "good life." A few of Aristotle's quotes are in order to delineate his thinking. "That which is really `good' for us is something we always ought to desire because we need it." "A good life is one that has been lived by making morally virtuous choices or decisions." Aristotle was the first philosopher to label man as "a social animal." "Human beings can not live well or achieve the best lives for themselves, by living well or achieve the best lives for themselves, by living together in families and tribes." To achieve this "good life" we must live in states. So, what is the best state? The best state provides a guarantee of freedoms, less economic regulation, provide a safety net for people with bad luck, provide a good education so that we can be trained to make us morally virtuous citizens.

I cannot sing Adler's praises enough; he does a great job of simplifying Aristotle's concepts. A great beginning book on philosophy, which delves into the teachings of the most brilliant person in history.

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to continue one's journey into political philosophy.

Adler, who taught at the University of Chicago and was associated with the "Great Books" movement, finds fault with Aristotle's views on the inferiority of women and the naturalness of slavery. Otherwise, he finds Aristotle's views as a philosopher unparalleled, with Aristotle remaining the philosopher of common sense.

For Adler, philosophy has to do with elaborating and reflecting on common sense based on the everyday experiences that all humans have, as opposed to the specialized experiences of scientists. That scientists' `specialized' experiences may challenge some of the assumptions of common sense is not considered by him.

Aristotle, unlike Parminedes, accepted that things change. Unlike Plato, he viewed this change as `real' not illusory. But like them he accepted that the things that change retain something permanent and unchanging called by him "substance." This leads to the law of identity, "A is A," not formally stated by Aristotle or Adler but implicit in their work. Knowledge for Aristotle consisted of the search for this `substance,' for the unchanging `essence' or `form' of things. For the non-aristotelian such "common sense" involves an uncritical objectification of subject-predicate grammar and will not do for a modern, process view. Nonetheless it still has a powerful pull.

Philosophy is everybody's business according to Mortimer Adler and to him Aristotle is our best teacher. His views are timeless because he drew them from the common experience of all men from all time. He was the master of uncommon common sense.

Aristotle says reason is what is common to all mankind. The ability to ask questions about the world, to categorize and to play philosophical games. Man utilizes reason in three directions: producing, practicing and knowing. Alder follows this scheme to explain Aristotle's synoptic view of the world.

As a producer man transforms nature into art. The possibility of art or culture made by human purpose is predicated on the change that happens all the time in the world. Changes are categorized by type (location, quantity, quality, coming to be and passing away) and causes (material, efficient, formal, final). All things in the world are composed of form and matter. The form is what gives things their universality, their what-ness. Matter is what gives things their particularity, their this-ness. Form is a thing's function. Matter, its potentiallity to adopt function. So when someone produces a new thing he trans-forms an old thing. He first has the idea in his mind of the form of what he wishes to make, then with the right know-how, he imposes it upon the materials.

As a practicer or a doer man is concerned with ends and means. What he wants to do and what he needs to do first in order to achieve it. Aristotle contends that all men need a master plan that directs all action to a single goal. From the axiom that what is really good is desirable he concludes that the ultimate end of all men is the good life, or Happiness. Unfortunately, man has acquired desires that are not good for him and for too much of things that are only good in limited proportions. For this reason Aristotle makes virtue, or the habit of choosing the real goods that will bring happiness, the chief good. But even the virtuous man can be impeded in his pursuit of happiness by bad fortune. For this reason individuals associate together first in families. Here they help each other find the bodily goods necessary to live and the social goods necessary to live well. To further meet their social need men gather in states. Those that love each other go to lengths to see that they get the goods that they need, while all men owe justice to one another, that is, that they do nothing to interfere with them obtaining the goods necessary for happiness. Because not all men love one another and not all men are just governments are necessary.

In the part on man as a knower, Adler deals with the process of thinking itself. Aristotle's theory of knowledge begins with the senses. Information about the bodies in the external world is brought into the mind through our sense organs. The mind pieces together our sensations, relates them, works them through the imagination and memory and then makes ideas. Ideas are the forms of the things we sense extracted from the matter and put into our minds. When the mind begins relating ideas and making assertion then it has progressed to the realm of reasoning and inference. According to Aristotle there are rules that govern the validity and truth of reasoning and inference, such as the law of non-contradiction. What is cannot be what is not and what is not cannot be what is. Adler then explains the difference between contradictories, contraries and subcontraries. Next, the rules for syllogisms or mediate arguments. Finally, he gets to explaining the levels of knowing we can have. To Aristotle, self evident truths, axioms, and conclusions from them are the only things that are knowledge, everything else is varying degrees of opinion. There is mere personal taste. Then there are opinions held on the authority of others and not reason, whether true/false, axiomatic/non-axiomatic. Last, there are the scientific, historical, and philosophical conclusions based off the preponderance of the evidence.

The last four chapters of the book are what Adler calls "difficult questions." The first is on the concept of infinity. Adler gives Aristotle's refutation of Democritus' infinite, indivisible atom theory and discusses the reason that potential infinity is a possibility but an actual infinity in existence is not. In the next chapter (Eternity) Adler says that time (the dimension of change) is infinite in both directions, ie, the world has no beginning and no end, because all change must have a cause. In "The Immateriality of Mind", Adler further elaborates on matter and form, explaining how the forms are the immaterial aspect of the material world and that the mind is thus necessarily immaterial in order to collect the forms as ideas. In his chapter on "God" he discusses how Aristotle's prime mover is a purely actual, perfect, immaterial being that causes all change without himself being caused through being an attractive force or a final cause to the heavenlies.

Mortimer Adler's style is clear and concise. He writes at a popular level without technical philosophical jargon or uncommon philosophical concepts. He uses many helpful and humorous illustrations.

As far as Adler's fidelity to Aristotle is concerned, I am not qualified to comment except to state where he openly declares his dissent from the Philosopher. The first thing I remember is that Adler takes exception to Aristotle's view that slaves and women are not entitled to the same rights as free men. I suppose this might make much of Adler's view on justice and government suspect. Another instance is in his chapter on God Adler postulates the prime mover as a Creator in the sense that he is necessary to sustain the world's existence.

There isn't very much I can add to what has already been said by other reviewers. This is an absolutely excellent and accessible introduction to Aristotle and his thinking. As one reviewer says, the chapters are very logical and straightforward, each building up on previous chapters. Upon reading this brief book, the reader will have a much better understanding of Aristotle's thought, as well as an expanded perspective on God, our existence, family, work, and contemplation. While the subject matter is profound, Adler is far from erudite, and this book (as with many of his others that I have read) should prove to be accessible by junior high school students, high school students, college students, and so on. A definite "must read" for everybody.

Aristotle for Everybody is a brief introduction to Aristotle aimed at the young reader. Its target audience is probably the inquisitive student in the 12-14 range who is seeking an overview of Aristotelian thought.

I accidentally picked up this book after glancing at a couple of the reviews on this site. I was about to re-read some Aristotle and was seeking to re-acquaint myself with his particular style and language. This is definitely not the book for this purpose.

Adler's text is clearly geared to the young reader who has not been introduced to philosophy. I do not mean this to be disrespectful but to help oher readers avoid my mistake. Adler, himself notes in the introduction that his initial thought was to title the work Aristotle for Children. Indeed for the young reader this may not be an inappropriate mechanism for introducing Aristotle.

Do you read to be entertained or enlightened? While most of us would answer "both", we each exhibit a preference. From the celebrated first chapter, "Odysseus' Scar", of what is widely regarded as one of the definitive critical studies of comparative literature, Auerbach attempts to trace the evolution of the representation of reality in narrative in the West. The two streams, with their sources emanating from Athens and Jerusalem, converge finally in post-Napoleonic France during the first half of the 19th century, in the realism of Stendahl, Balzac, and Flaubert. The trend continues with increasing refinement in the work of their heirs in France, England, Russia and the Americas. The thread of the evolving democratization of the criteria for understanding is traced in the most fascinating manner through this study of the influence on the emphasis on the universality of meaning first emerging in the impulse of Biblical texts and later in subjectivist trends in the early 20th century.

History often proves that good can come out of bad situations. The apostle Paul's imprisonment forcefully slowed him down and gave mankind priceless letters. Erich Auerbach's flight and exile gave him leisure to write this masterpiece of which the West is in his debt.

Every chapter is very rewarding and rich. I would like to selectively comment on my three favourites:

Odysseus Scar - Compares the truth in Old Testament biblical stories whose events force us to think of their meaning in our lives with Homeric literature and Epic that primarily concerns itself with entertainment allowing the reader to merely relax and enjoy its eloquence without threat or discomfort.

Fortunata - Explains how the New Testament introduced a new way of showing reality, capturing dialogue between regular people. It is also groundbreaking by consciously portraying a deeper spiritual truth within its text. Auerbach suggests the New Testament is clearly a development off of the Jewish style rather than the Greek or Roman. In making his points Auerbach coincidentally offers support to supporters of the traditional authorship of the New Testament and it's intended portrayal of reality rather than myth.

The Interrupted Supper - Auerbach's masterstroke in criticizing the thought of Voltaire, which depends on the oversimplification of the opposing point of view in order to discredit and smear it, opened my mind to the danger of the lovable decorous little old man whose eloquence and seemingly innocuous ideas can create a chain of nefarious events in its wake. The most dangerous evil can be that which is disguised. Auerbach who believed he paid the price of the consequences of Voltaire's technique should be treated in this chapter as a sage for 21st century man.

Before reading this book I had little interest in the topic of literary criticism. After reading the book I still have little interest in its study but for a different reason. Auerbach has given me the impression that he has touched on the point that matters most when trying to understand the classics of literature and for that I am grateful.

Written in non-self-imposed exile in Istanbul, *Mimesis* is not only a fantastically influential piece of literary scholarship, but also an interesting response to the political calamities of the 20th century. Erich Auerbach, a student of Romance literatures, covers the entire history of Western literature from Homer to Proust: his goal is uncovering the literary devices that made the achievement of literary realism possible. His analytic techniques are manifold and his technical mastery of philological detail is breathtaking, but the book requires no specialist knowledge to appreciate -- this is a truly worthwhile contribution to the discourse of the educated public, not a larder of academic in-references.

Auerbach's signature move, undoubtedly influenced by his Jewish faith but also a wise assessment of the material realities of the history of literature, is to reverse the traditional critical valuations of "Hebraism" and "Hellenism" -- for him, the realistic spirit in literature begins with the Bible and not with the ancient "novels". He analyzes the progress in realism along two axes: a rhetorical one concerning the end of the "separation of styles", found in medieval realists like Dante who began to depict "low" occurrences with the same seriousness and dignity aristocratic tragic heroes had traditionally merited, and a syntactic one in which the revival of connective precision in language overcomes the poverty and ambiguity of the literary Dark and Middle Ages.

Auerbach is almost as famous for what he neglects as for what he favors: he thinks poorly of French classicism and German literature in general, and knows hardly anything at all about historical English literature beyond Shakespeare. But the scope of the book is nevertheless so encylopedic that it could not but help the reader to achieve a clearer view of European literature in its entirety; the political asides from a serious scholar with decidedly socialist sympathies, looking on at genocidal execution he narrowly escaped, are of great documentary value. Any educated person will want to read this book.

this book is excellent and one of its kind, erich auerbach commanded a veritably deep understanding of philology and languages which he used to cunning effect in analysing various works, e.g. gregory of tours' "history of the franks." there he informed us that bishop gregory's latin was something midway between roman latin and early vernacular french, somewhat crude and grammatically obfuscated. auerbach was a lot more alert to the dynamics of cultural and language change than was his contemporary ernst robert curtius, the latter was held back (i suspect by his aristocratic background) from appreciating the fact that many tectonic shifts of culture start from the bottom-up -- this auerbach took great pains to demonstrate, e.g. in the very first chapter when he compared the odyssey to the hebrew bible. curtius' view was a static, fossilized one, consisting of a select circle of literary greats convening together "in the mind" and influencing world-history. auerbach's view was more egalitarian and generous toward those works which might not be "rightfully" called literary (e.g. works that fail to satisfy the classical rules of rhetoric, as stipulated in curtius' ELLMA) -- to this category belong the nibelungenlied and other germanic epics. one walks away from "Mimesis" feeling considerably enriched by Auerbach's insights into languages and different Weltanschauungen and not least of all by his pervasive spirit of humanism.

When one starts to study western literature, and puts all of his effort to an neverending task of unravelling mysteries of European literature, one has sooner or later stumble upon this book. Sooner the better. Auerbachs work is on of the most influential works in comparative sciences of literature, it spans for Homer to Virginia Woolf, covering large variety of authors and styles. Main point in the books is recurrence of "realism" troughout the entire history of literature. "Realism" here stands for platonic and aristotelian term of "mimesis" which is, roughly said, (and as the title indicates) manner of representation of reality.

This was one of the greatest, and on the other hand, most disputed theory. Question of style related to function and age where it emerged are unanswered up till these days and will remain so in quite a few years to come.

But I am not here to debate about the contents of this book. I am here simply to note that, no matter if you agree or not with Auerbach, Mimesis is fundamental piece of work that has to be read if you are even thinking of spending your life buried inside books and start to think in a manner of literary criticism. Together with Ernest R. Curtiuses "European literature and middle ages" it stand highly above the average piece of work that you can stumble upon.

You don't have to be particularly educated for this one. It can be read on many levels and with many kinds of understanding, considering of your education, but never diminishing its value, allways offering you some more to look upon, and some new perspective to think about.

And if you are aware that this book was written in Istambul, almost without any secondary literature avaliable, admiration for this work may only go higher.