Westerns Books

I'm not really sure what this book's purpose was really. It's not a great book, but it's not horrible. A lot of areas of history are seemingly skipped over completely and some are very in depth for no real reason at all. I found myself using other sources online to help myself grasp the more interesting areas of history that this book would only dedicate a mere paragraph to.

Fancy Pants was the first of Cathy Marie Hake's books I have read and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found the characters lovable and some of the situations quite amusing. Cathy did a great job writing this book and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a clean romance with a little humor blended in. Cathy Marie Hake is definitely now on my list of favorite authors.

I picked up this book and finished it in one day. It was the first book I've read from this author.

I think the premise of the story was unbelievable and obviously couldn't happen in real life, but I read christian romances to escape and be entertained and that's exactly what this book did.

I found Syd's antics in this story to be funny. Picturing her in her fancy pants get up, along with several of the situations she found herself in, made me laugh out loud.

I enjoyed all the supporting characters in this novel as well. I found the Richardson sisters particularly funny.

There were some great scenes written that showed how Syd and Tim's romance was blossoming (the porch swing was cute).

Overall, this book was well done and will make me seek out more stories from this author.

In FANCY PANTS, veteran author Cathy Marie Hake (BITTERSWEET) spins a cutely-conceived historical comedy, lush with romance, of a high-bred lady who disguises herself as a man and journeys from England to Texas to work on an uncle's ranch.

It's a catchy idea (even if it's been done in variations before). Hake begins her story in 1890 with the orphaned 20-year-old Lady Sydney Hathwell still mourning the death of her father a year previous. She travels with her chaperone Aunt Serena Hathwell from England to New York to meet her fiancé, the despicable Rexall Hume. Hake ensures that readers will despise him from the very first page (his scowl, in the first sentence, would rival "a gargoyle's"). Rexall is after her title and the business she will bring his way, although why she will is never really convincing. Nevertheless, readers will cheer when Sydney decides to escape his clutches by dressing up as a man and disappearing. Her Uncle Fuller, who she has never met --- and who believes Sydney is a boy! --- has promised her a position on his Texas ranch until Sydney can decide what she'll do next.

Employing different points of view, Hake uses the first half of the novel to let Sydney masquerade as a boy, then the second for her to "come out" as a woman. Few females can pull off disguising themselves as men for long, and the housekeeper/cook sees through Sydney's ruse from almost the first moment. However, she helps keep Sydney's gender a secret. The tough Tim Creighton, who runs the ranch in her uncle's unexpected absence, is both exasperated and put off by the "fancy pants" prissy fop foisted on him. The other ranch-hands --- Bert, Pancake, Juan, Boaz, Gulp and Merle --- are also concerned. Tim puts Sydney to work doing the worst ranch tasks: shoveling manure, plowing a garden with a horse.

Lots of fun lurks between the covers of this book, from Sydney being taken out for a night on the town with the boys (in which she must navigate too much beer and a brothel) to having to fend off the attentions of a passel of local and eager eligible women. Romance with the right guy is telegraphed from the early pages, so readers won't be surprised by the novel's concluding nuptials.

Hake is a competent writer, and the story unfurls with just enough events to keep the narrative moving. However, a little judicious shortening and tightening would have helped the pacing; by page 300, you already know who Sydney is going to end up with, and you'd just like to see it happen. Lines such as Sydney wearing "lady's boots that constricted her feet only a fraction as much as Tim's words constricted her heart" are a little over the top. And for a historical novel, this is more heavy on romance and lighter on the historical details.

Readers who like their inspirational novels to clearly and thoroughly outline the plan of salvation will appreciate the lengthy section toward the end of the book where Tim helps Sydney understand the difference between formal "go-through-the-motions" religion and the idea of a personal, grace-filled faith. Others who like their faith elements to be more subtle may not find this as much to their liking.

However, Hake's book is a fun read, and if it seems improbable that a beautiful girl like Sydney could disguise herself as a man for this long --- well, this is fiction, right? So suspend disbelief and enjoy this comedic historical jaunt.

--- Reviewed by Cindy Crosby

I was really, really looking forward to reading this novel. While I won't go so far as to say that Hake disappointed me, I just wasn't left satisfied at the end of the novel. I liked all of the characters and the premise, it's just that it seemed to move at a very slow pace. Later, however, the book fairly speeds through the budding romance between the two lead characters. They spend a great portion of the novel fighting or misunderstanding one another and all of a sudden they want to get married. Too quick. It just seemed slightly too unbelievable to me, otherwise, the book was well written and interesting.

*Some Spoilers*
I really wanted to like Fancy Pants as I think that the premise has the promise of a great read. However I was terribly disappointed.
Lady Sydney is an unaffecting and unsympathetic character whose ruse is carried out farther then necessary or probable for a woman of her time. She is waiting to reach her "age of majority" yet I was surprised to find that she is 17 waiting for 18 not 20 waiting for 21 as it most defiantly would have been for that time period. Through the beginning of the book I found her to be ridiculously naïve for her supposed advanced education, making foolish assumptions and basing her impulsive decisions on them. By the end of the book I didn't find that she had improved or grown in many ways at all even though she wrestles with being a sinner and the idea of forgiveness and ultimately accepts salvation.
Big Tim really confuses me. We see ghosts of his background that we are supposed to connect to but are never fully developed; they could be powerful touchstones to explain who he is but fall flat. Tim's attitudes and actions are puzzling; he dislikes Sydney instantly and sets about to pound her into manhood, next we find him in a fury upon discovery of Sydney's true identity, suddenly he is leading her to Christ then before we know it he is thoroughly and possessively in love with her and on the way to the alter. For a man who is a respected Christian member of the community- loved by all- he comes off to me as angry, obstinate and undesirable marriage material.
The conclusion of the story and developing romance is positively rushed; the much anticipated arrival of Sydney's uncle is conspicuously lacking and the triumph over lurking evil simplistic, insufficient and anticlimactic.
Throughout Fancy Pants I was thrown out of the story by the plentiful anachronisms, words, phrases, facts and ideas that are out of place for their time. Most would say that it is a little thing and can be ignored but for me it was jarring as was the text arrangement and lack of page breaks. Overall I believe Fancy Pants could have been better written and plotted with warmer characters and believable events.

Enthralling, entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking, "The Symposium" is one of Plato's classics. A group of men gathered at a dinner party in ancient Greece discuss the topic of love. Each man offers his view or definition of love, and the results are all different, engaging, and full of symbolism. Although it is a short book, one must not read it once and put it away; it ought to be be read again and again just to compare to what is "picked up on" each time. One thing always puzzles me: I will never know why Plato included the doctor (his name escapes me at the moment) have a bout of hiccups during someone's speech. I have never come up with a satisfactory answer - nor has any one I know, either. Nevertheless, this is an excellent read that I highly recommend for anyone - student and nonstudent. Enjoy!

The Symposium of Plato is a profoundly thought-provoking, entertaining and inspiring piece of philosophical writing. It is very short, yet infinitely more substantial than many longer works.

We are in Athens, 416 B.C.E. The scene is a banquet at the house of Agathon, who had the day before celebrated the victory of his tragedy. By the end of the party, seven men - and one absent but central woman - will have presented their views on the nature and meaning of Eros, or love.

There is no difficulty in keeping the characters distinct in our minds. Plato has great fun contrasting the opinions - and verbal styles - of tragic poet, comic poet, politician, physician and the rest, allowing absurdities and profundities to mingle freely. Socrates is very appealing, saint-like, yet utterly down-to-earth, playing his usual role of a 'philosopher' - one who 'knows only that he does not know' - always in passionate search of the truth, but catching only revelatory glimpses of its perfection.

Phaedrus gives the first speech, praising lovers' (especially homosexual) passion and loyalty, which makes them perform mighty and heroic deeds. Pausanias differentiates between virtuous, or spiritual love, and common, or bodily love. Virtuous love between men should not be primarily about sex, but about improvement and education of the soul. Eryximachus, the doctor, makes a mostly irrelevant (and boring) speech, claiming nature's contrasting elements illustrate the need to balance the healthy and unhealthy aspects of love. Aristophanes then delivers a brilliantly memorable speech, hilarious and poignant by turns, telling of how humans were once two-in-one, back to back, with two heads, four arms and four legs, with three combinations of sexes, male/male, male/female, and female/female. Their strength and speed made them threaten the gods, so Zeus cut them in half, leaving them to search forever for their other halves, and through love attempt to regain their original oneness. Agathon then gives an over-the-top, ecstatic speech, praising love as the youngest, most graceful of the gods, saying he brought order to heaven itself, 'empties men of disaffection and fills them with affection', etc, climaxing with the suggestion we all follow in love's footsteps, 'sweetly singing in his honour'.

It is then Socrates' turn. He performs for all conversations that took place between himself when much younger and Diotima, a 'wise' woman from Mantineia, to whom he had gone for instruction in the highest truths of love. In sum, the lesson is that love is the desire for the everlasting possession of the good and beautiful, which brings happiness. We crave immortality, in order to be happy eternally. We love our offspring, artistic works, laws and institutions, because they are all attempts to achieve an immortal name. These, Diotima claims, are the 'lesser' mysteries of love.

The 'greater' proceed from the 'lesser' in ascending steps. From one beautiful body the lover creates 'fair notions', then he sees all bodies are similar and equally worthy of love. From bodies he proceeds to the beauty of the virtuous mind, then the beauties of institutions and laws, climbing from there to the beauty of the sciences, until, after much growth in wisdom, he reaches the vision of all creation as beautiful. The final step is to rise to the contemplation of unchanging, eternal, absolute beauty itself. To spend your life in union with perfect beauty allows you to bring forth 'real' things, not 'images' and 'be immortal, if mortal man may'.

A drunken Alcibiades bursts in at this point, and gives a rambling, often funny, speech about his love for Socrates and how he - a very beautiful man - was spurned sexually by him. He describes Socrates' near-supernatural control of himself, totally above the effects of pain and pleasure. The book ends with a description of Socrates' companions all falling asleep as dawn breaks (after all-night drinking) and his going about his usual day.

Throughout the Symposium, Plato makes it clear that sexual relations are not the best thing at all for 'lovers'; they who wish for the highest happiness must seek to grow in virtue and wisdom and become increasingly detached from earthly pleasures. This is the origin of the phrase 'Platonic love'. Women were not considered their intellectual and spiritual equals in Athens at the time, so men of sophistication had to look to each other for emotional sustenance.

What then, we may ask, can the Symposium offer human beings today who are not interested in purely mystical/intellectual living and prefer the sexual and emotional satisfactions found in personal relationships?

A great deal, I believe. In his introduction Benjamin Jowett states that Plato 'is conscious that the highest and noblest things in the world are not easily severed from the sensual desires, or may even be regarded as a spiritual form of them'. In other words, earthly pleasures and transcendent ones are inextricable. Plato used words such as 'good' and 'virtue' to describe freeing oneself from the world of the senses, by using our reason to choose correctly who - or what - to attach to as we move through life. If we choose correctly, be it friends, sexual or lifetime partners, we strengthen our sense of inner freedom, until finally we experience it at the deepest, mystical level - the profound shift in consciousness that Plato was pointing to as the highest good - which in and of itself is morally and values-neutral.

The genius of Plato is that he communicates the total commitment required to attain perfect freedom, and the moral obligation of all human beings to strive for the happiness it alone can deliver.

Plato's "Symposium" will always be read because there will always be people who question the nature of Love. Agathon's dinner party is the scene of a conversation between a small group of men, who go around the table offering their views on Love. What does Love mean to us to-day? Reading over the responses of the dinner-guests and their host, we find the same range of answers in Ancient Greece that we are likely to find now.

Phaedrus and Pausanias are utilitarians and materialists. Phaedrus looks at love between people and a proto-Burkean love for government and state. Pausanias complicates the argument, saying that there are two different kinds of love, one which is common and one which is heavenly - yet still oriented towards the real and the tangible. Eryximachus is a proto-Swedenborg, trying to reconcile or harmonize the two kinds of love.

The jewels of Plato's "Symposium" are Aristophanes and Socrates. Aristophanes gives us the profoundly moving depiction of Love as a fundamental human need, a desire for completion. For a writer of comedy, whose aim as an art form is forgiveness and acceptance, Aristophanes's explanation is no surprise, though its depth is amazing. While women are generally discounted throughout the "Symposium," not only does Socrates, as we might expect, completely astound his audience (both inside the book and out) with his progressively logical and ascendant view of Love, but he also does it through the voice of a woman, Diotima. When we realize that Socrates is a character in this fiction, and that his words originate in a woman, the egalitarianism and wisdom of Plato the author truly shines forth, like the absolute beauty he claims as the ultimate goal of Love.

Was Plato a feminist? I don't know. I do know that the "Symposium" is a tremendous book. I picked it up and did not stop reading it until I was finished. The style of the Penguin translation is smooth, with a lighthearted tone that can make you forget that you are reading philosophy. Plato's comedic masterpiece in the "Symposium" is the character of Alcibiades, who provides the work a fitting end. Get the "Symposium" and read it now. You cannot help but Love it...in a Platonic sort of way.

Perhaps the most "literary" of all Plato's works, "Symposium" is the story of a dinner party gathering of great (and a few not so great) minds, whom engage in a discussion in praise of eros, or passionate love. It is considered literary because it is highly metaphorical, it's characters are drawn well and in some cases unforgettably, and it succeeds on many levels. It is not uncommon for Socrates to elevate the subject of discussion in any given dialogue to that of our earthly existence, and how we should go about it. Perhaps shocking to readers unfamiliar with the Greeks is the prevalence of homosexual love, particularly with young boys. But, if nothing else, this is an insight into ancient culture. And the absolutely magnificent speeches given by Aristophanes and Socrates remain profound and beautiful to modern readers, regardless of whether or not the other speeches are unpalatable to some. Also, Alcibiades, drunken, hilarious rant is not to be missed. Read in a single sitting, this work is almost sublime.

.
Plato's "Symposium" is the story of Agathon's dinner party where conversation takes place with a small group of men, who recline, eat and drink around a table offering their views on Love. This story is an amazing account of how intelligent and yet so different a culture the men from ancient Greece were compared to our society today. Each speaker has this most amazing ability to tell two stories at the very same time, an creative artistic movement of what love 'is' in each and every story. applying and , metaphorically. intertwining a cultural, mythological story of the gods, giving far deeper meaning. In addition to this, the love relationships and sexual nature of these men also permeate an entire cultural feel to the story, enveloping a radical differentiation from our de-mystified and de-enchanted world back into a once existing world of substantial meaning and profundity.

Phaedrus, speaks first and relates how love is the greatest good, the beautiful, is shameful of ugly things and how only lovers are willing to die for one another.

The second speaker, Pausanias, applies two types of love, one Aphrodite, a common base love working at random with men's feelings, for money, for loving physical bodies, boys, men and women. The other type of love, from a much younger goddess, being a higher type, the heavenly, who only loves other men and boy love, but this is not physical body love but from affection of the mind of virtue and wisdom..

Aristophanes has the hiccups, so it is Eryximachus, a doctor, who speaks third, applying the idea of love as a double love; "for bodily health and disease are by common consent different things and unlike, and what is unlike desires and loves things unlike." p.82 The god of art was said to implant love as a healing art, all such love guided by this god. "It is quite illogical to say that a harmony is at variance with itself or is made up of notes still at variance." "So love as a whole has great and mighty power, or in a word, omnipotence ."

Aristophanes, the comic writer, gives a moving account of Love as a absolute human need, a desire for completion to the point of each person once shaped differently being cut in half, taking our current shape, in need of the other to complete the whole of what we once were. "For first there were three sexes, not two as at present, male and female, but also a third having both together," and they were violent, strong and forceful and would even attack the gods. So Zeus and the other gods held a meeting and decided to cut them in halves and make them weaker. From then on, they were sexually drawn to one another, both heterosexual and homosexual, reasons all due to the way of the cutting of the halves.Lesbianism and boy to man love is freely spoken of and justified according to this story of the gods. His moving speech on the beauty and virtue of love however, is according to Socrates, true only in the sense of romanticism and fictional idolatrous admiration of what love should be. For Socrates found such a romantic explanation of love as untrue to what love really is and what love contains, as it does not contain all the beauty and good.

The fourth speaker, Agathon gives a moving speech on the beauty and virtue of love however, it is according to Socrates, true only in the sense of romanticism and fictional idolatrous admiration of what love should be. "For all the gods are happy . . and love is the happiest of them all being the most beautiful and best . . the youngest of gods." In his speech, love is every good, virtuosos and beautiful thing.

The last speaker, Socrates, found such a romantic explanation of love to be untrue, for what desires good, virtue and wisdom is only something that does not contain such, something lacking, and therefore lacking it desires such things. Love only desires what it lacks. Love is neither beautiful nor ugly. "To have right opinion without being able to give reason is neither to understand nor is it ignorance. Right opinion is no doubt something between knowledge and ignorance."

It is so interesting how common and free sexuality and homosexuality were, how each man present commented on the beauty of the young men in their glory of youth. Alcibiades, jealous of Agathon, also a young beautiful male, makes a moving speech how Socrates refused his love and how other like young men, also were moved with his amazing wisdom and prose.

While women are generally discounted, and the bonding of affection in male love was considered a higher love by Pausanias, Socrates explanation of love, by far the most profound, was one he received from a woman named Diotima. Here, as another reviewer has stated, shows Plato's the egalitarianism and wisdom, like that of the beauty and ultimate goal of Love.

Later a group of men crash the party and the drinking really gets started. Some leave, while Socrates stays all night, never loosing integrity from his drinking and leaves with all his integrity.

Even if you never cook any of these foods, this is fun reading for Little House fans. The book is crafted so excerpts from the books which mention the foods are included with the recipes. I haven't tried cooking any of these, but most recipes seem doable. Good for LHOTP collections.

We bought this to supplement our unit study and have really enjoyed the recipes. This book also adds lots of extra information, not just on the Ingalls and Wilder families but, on farms of the time and farm house kitchens.

This is a great compliment to reading the Little House books. As a homeschool mom I know that the kids want to experience the same things that Laura and her family did and this si a really fun way of bringing the books to life! You'll learn how to make crackling corn bread, Ma's baked beans and a green pumpkin pie! This is another wonderful addition to our family library and yours as well!

As a big fan of the Little House books I was really excited to get this cook book. It is full of great info and is good for learning about how they cooked (and what they cooked) in the past. I wouldn't plan on using it as a day to day cook book, but for something fun or to understand the Little House books better, it's a great buy.

I loved reading this book after reading all Ingalls-Wilder's books this summer. The history behind each recipe and the obvious attention to detail make this an excellent book for any Little House fan. I've made about 8 recipes so far with great results.

I was really looking forward to "Fried Apples and Onions" from Farmer Boy and was expecting something different than what the final outcome was (more of a steamed dish than a fried one). The Light Bread and Light Biscuits were raved about as well as Bird's Nest Pudding (a new favorite for us). The fried salt pork with gravy was an unexpected triumph, even if too salty. The corn dodgers were okay, something my family is not accustomed to. The Rye 'n' Injun bread was very different than anything we've ever had-surprisingly sweet and the rye flavor packs a punch. The doughnuts were excellent-something I'll probably be expected to repeat soon. Really looking forward to trying the molasses on snow candy-just waiting for the snow!

I was looking forward to trying my hand at cheese making but found that the instructions were incomplete. Three entire paragraphs for this recipe ended without finishing sentences-maybe an issue I should bring up with the publisher. Otherwise, this review would be a solid 5 stars. (Update on the Hard Cheese recipe that was incomplete-I have gone back and forth with the publisher on this and it comes down to the fact that the 3rd edition of this cookbook-whether hardback or paperback-was edited poorly. They have sent me 2 'replacements', and both had the same problem as the book I received as a gift. They were very nice about it and told me to donate the books to the local library, but I'm still missing a complete recipe. Very disappointing!)

I would agree with others that this is a book to be enjoyed WITH your children and should not be considered a children's cookbook. I enjoyed reading the included excerpts from the Little House books to my family as we ate each recipe and look forward to trying more recipes in the near future. I have a large collection of cookbooks and even cater to small groups occasionally, but this book will be treasured for those times I can enjoy in the kitchen-just for fun.

I have been reading philosophy for a long time now and occasionally, when I talk about it to my friends, I get asked where one can start when it comes to a massive subject like philosophy. Before this book, I would have a hard time pinpointing a good source for a newcomer because most books out there are either boring and dull college books or books that are way too complicated and wordy for anyone without a background to enjoy them.

This series turned out to be perfect for starting a journey in philosophy or brushing up on your ancient Greek philosophy - where it all started. It is a pity that it does not include some Eastern thought schools that are very important to explore but I suppose it had to limit itself on some scale. It is easy to comprehend, laid out rather nicely and often enough refers to former chapters so you don't lose the thread. Not only does it give paragraphs of good translations of the original texts from Plato and Aristotele etc, but it also enriches these thoughts with its own neat and current examples.

I highly recommend it. It was a very pleasant read.

This item was in very good shape and came to me in no time. It was shipped the same day of the purchase and i got it 2 days later.

This book offers an excellent summery of the basic teachings, understandings, and doctrines from Thales of the pre-socratics to the late Classical period in Rome (Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, ect). The History of Western Philosphy Series is an excellent addition to the mind and bookshelf of all scholars who maintain interest in the evolution of the human mind. This specific book goes well hand in hand with F. M. Cornfield's "From Religion to Philosophy (A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation)."

This book, 'The Classical Mind', is the first volume of a five-volume series on the history of Western Philosophy by W.T. Jones, professor of philosophy in California. This series is a very strong, thorough introduction to the course of Western Philosophy, beginning at the dawn of the philosophical enterprise with the pre-Socratics in ancient Greece to the modern thinkers such as Wittgenstein and Sartre. It has grown, over the three decades or so of its publication, from one to four then to five volumes. It has remained a popular text, and could serve as the basis of a one-year survey of philosophy for undergraduates or a one-semester survey for graduate students. Even advanced students in philosophy will find this valuable, all major topics and most minor topics in the course of philosophy are covered in these volumes.

Jones states that there are two possible ways for a writer to organise a history of philosophy -- either by addressing everyone who ever participated in philosophy (which could become rather cumbersome if one accepts the premise that anyone could be a philosopher), or to address the major topics and currents of thought, drawing in the key figures who address them, but leaving out the lesser thinkers for students to pursue on their own. Jones has chosen the latter tactic, making sure to provide bibliographic information for this task.

This volume, 'The Classical mind', starts and ends in ancient Greece. Plato and Aristotle are well featured, to be sure, but the pre-Socratics and the post-Aristotilean thinkers are also discussed in great detail. The first chapter deals with a number of thinkers whose names are well-known to those who study the history of science as well as to philosophers -- Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras -- showing the interconnection of disciplines that recurs again and again throughout history, but never again so closely as in these opening days of Western thought.

Jones gives a general history lesson along with the history of the development of thought so that the reader will understand the social and historical context in which ideas developed. Plato and Aristotle both came out a context in which Greece was a fairly violent place much of the time, with warring factions and city-states variously dependent upon and warring against each other.

The discussion of Plato largely deals with his theories of knowledge and metaphysics, with an additional chapter on subsequent topics such as ethics, politics, religion and art. Similiarly, Aristotle is dealt with in two chapters, with the major topics of metaphysics, logic, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and other issues addressed. At the end of each of these sections, Jones gives a general critique of the philosopher's main ideas, and in the final chapter of the book, sets the stage for further developments, particularly in terms of the decline of the Golden Age in Greece. In some regards, all subsequent Western philosophy vacilates between Plato and Aristotle, so a thorough grounding is important.

Each volume ends with a glossary of terms, and a worthwhile index. The glossary warns against short, dictionary-style definitions and answers to broad terms and questions, and thus indicates the pages index-style to the discussion within the text for further context. The one wish I would have would be a comprehesive glossary and index that covers the several volumes; as it is, each volume has only its own referents.

This is minor criticism in a generally exceptional series. It is not easy text, but it is not needlessly difficult. The print size on the direct quotes, which are sometimes lengthy, can be a strain at times, but the reading is worthwhile.

W. T. Jones' first volume, The Classical Mind, is a fantastic introduction for studying ancient philosophy. His work is fairly clear and not very difficult in terms of being able to understand his explication of various philosophers and theories. That is, Jones does not write to other philosophers; he is writing to would-be philosophers or students. Jones considers important aspects such as the timing and events surrounding the philosophical theories in order to demonstrate that these ideas do not develop ex nihilo. They arise because of important questions or issues developed in the relevant cultures.

This work covers quite a few people. Of course, it is not exhaustive on every thinker; nor is such even possible since many of the writings of people like the pre-socratics do not exist beyond a few manuscripts. In any case, Jones starts with them (specificaly Homer and Hesiod), through Thales, to Plato, to Aristotle, and up to the skeptics (e.g., Carneades and Sextus). From time to time, Jones will comment upon some of the positive and negative (or implausible) aspects of each of the theories provided. Sometimes his objections are good; other times, they can be answered. For instance, Jones treats Plato's argument for the Forms as a transcendental argument and he applies Stephan Korner's uniquness argument against Plato (c.f. Korner, "The Impossibility of Transcendental Deductions"). Jones doesn't refer to Korner, but it is the same point. I think Plato could *in principle* answer Jones.

There are a couple areas where I think that Jones has misinterpreted some of the early thinkers. For instance, Jones treats Aristotle as only holding to the intellectual virtues as being eudaimonia (for an alternative view, see Cooper, John M. "Reason and Human Good in Aristotle"). Also, Jones gives a traditional analysis of Parmenides. Patricia Curd offers an alternative analysis in "The Legacy of Parmenides." Both of these thinkers challenge the traditional views that Jones sides with. In any case, that's a head's up for readers who have not done exhaustive reading on these philosophers; just something to keep in mind when reading Jones.

Finally, I think that Jones often uses far too long of quotes from other people. At one point, he quoted Plato for an entire three pages (8 size font!). Jones could have summarized the point and added a footnote. Nevertheless, this is a great textbook for studying ancient philosophy and it deserves five stars despite my harsh disapproval of some of his analyses and writing style :)

Tillich believes that modern man's predominant anxiety is a sense of meaninglessness leading to despair. This is the Existentialist's plight. Tillich states that meaninglessness has not always been the predominant concern. In prior ages it had been death and later guilt.

In order to resolve the angst of modern man, Tillich imposes upon himself that "The answer must accept, as its precondition, the state of meaninglessness." This precondition creates the cul-de-sac for his rational argument.

Tillich himself, offers the naïve solution of "The faith which creates the courage to take [meaninglessness/anxiety] into itself has no special content. It is simply faith, undirected, absolute. It is undefinable, since everything defined is dissolved by doubt and meaninglessness."

In other words, Tillich suggests that to resolve meaninglessness and despair one should resort to having faith without subject matter.

Tillich further explains himself by stating the requisite courage/faith is not without subject matter but rather is in "pure being" or "the God above God". This is nonsense. The God of the Bible is the great "I AM", pure being. There is no God above God.

By giving the proposition "God above God" Tillich is either:

a) making a substitution identical to that which is being substituted, making the proposition gibberish

b) removing God from the equation, replacing Him with the power of being within ourselves as the basis for our courage (what an ersatz this exchange would be, a finite force within ourselves, leading to certain death, rather than a personal God who could be implored that held the power to gift eternity).

or

c) replacing the definition of God handed down through the ages and substituting it for one, more amenable to his existentialist philosophy. In so doing he is falling into the trap of creating god in his own image. One also would have to ask the question why he feels he should be trusted with elucidating to mankind who God is, using his reason alone? The credentials of Jesus and Moses are likely more qualified for this which is likely why their assertions are believed more than those of Tillich.

If you were not certain before reading this book that Existentialist philosophy has no real legitimate answers for meaning in life this book should provide another nail in the coffin towards that conclusion.

TILLICH'S BASIC IDEAS OF GOD AND THE GOD-ABOVE-GOD ARE NOT CLEAR IN THE COURAGE TO BE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE STATES AS THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF CHRISTIAN CLERGY KEEPING PEOPLE FROM REALIZING THE NATURE OF "GOD" FOR WHICH PURPOSE HE IDENTIFIES THE "GOD-ABOVE-GOD" THE NATURE OF "GOD" IS
THE GREAT MACHINE WHICH IN ALBERT EINSTEIN'S VIEW FOR EXAMPLE OBVIATES HUMAN FREEDOM. THAT IS: THE UNIVERSE IS MACHINE GOVERNED BY FIXED LAW; WE ARE ALL PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE, NO MORE FREE THAN A ROCK TO HAVE FREEDOM FROM, SAY, GRAVITY. TILLICH SAYS THAT TO REALLY GRASP THIS IS
BEYOND HUMAN ENDURANCE. IF ONE IS A SERIOUS STUDENT OF THE BIBLE, ONE CAN SEE THAT THE "GOD" OF TILLICH IS PRESENTED TO THE JEWS, BUT WITH A SET OF ILLUSIONS, AS CHOSEN, THE NEED FOR AN ENEMY TO DEFINE AS OTHER THAN AS THE "GOD" OF TILLICH THE NATURE OF THE JEWISH INDIVIDUAL, THE LONG-TERM ETHIC OF GHE GOOD DEFINED AS WHAT IS BEST FOR JEWS THROUGH CENTURIES. EINSTEIN CALLED THE JEWISH GOD (THE "GOD" OF TILLICH) AS THE
NEGATION OF SUPERSTITION AND WITH IMAGINARY CHARACTERISTICS ADDED.
THE "GOD-ABOVE-GOD" IS AN INTELLECTIZED JUSTIFICATION FOR IGNORING OR NOT PERMITTING OTHERS TO COMPREHEND THE MECHANICAL NATURE OF REALITY. TO IGNORE INVOLVES RISK. A MAN WHO IGNORES THE MECHANISTIC NATURE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN FAVOR OF COURAGE, HOPE, ROMANTICISM OR WHATEVER EXERCISES EITHER HIS IGNORANCE OR HIS COURAGE.

It seemed at the beginning that it would be too abstract. Too involved in a history of philosophy in its discussion of the Stoics. That Tillich was asserting too much, as if "ex cathedra". But even in the early chapters, I sensed something special and by the time I reached Chapter 4 ("Courage and Participation: The Courage to Be as a Part"), I began to feel the my current situation was being directly and wisely addressed. That feeling only grew stronger from that point on.

There's so much value in this book that I feel somehow unworthy of reviewing it. It doesn't seem that any amount of time I spent preparing a review could do justice to "The Courage to Be". I had heard so much of Tillich but this is the first time I have read him. I have missed a lot and I am grateful I finally turned to him. I had been concerned about religious myths and whether Christianity retained any value for me. Gnostic Christian myths seems fascinating and they made me wonder if Christianity might offer more to me than I had suspected. That concern with myths and Christianity led me to read several books by the progressive Christian Bishop John Shelby Spong (e.g. Jesus for the Non-Religious)). Spong mentioned in at least one of his books that he had been a student of Tillich's. Tillich had challenged Spong with the concept of nontheism, a position that Spong has moved to. That has been my own understanding since my teens but I had turned to nontheistic Eastern religions and to unorthodox, nondogmatic Western religions. Only recently had I been open to reconsidering liberal Christianity. To some extent I had already done that with such postmodern thinkers as Thomas Altizer (The Gospel of Christian Atheism and Living the Death of God: A Theological Memoir) and recently Spong. Following up with Tillich and this book has been literally a godsend.

In much of "The Courage to Be", Tillich applies his knowledge of Western Existentialism. This meant all the more to me as in my teens I had devoured such existentialists as Sartre, Camus and to a lesser extent even Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. But it was difficult to apply it to my situation. Altizer had helped by tracing developments from Christianity into postmodern movements including atheism but he was difficult to follow.

Here now is Tillich who ties together Western Existentialist topics such as anxiety and meaninglessness and a postmodern concern to rediscover the relevance of the Christian tradition. Is one's self in danger today of being a thing, or as he writes "a matter of calculation and management"? As Tillich points out, the Existentialist Revolt strongly opposed such objectification. But by transcending the theistic way of understanding the sacred ,by turning to "the God above God", Tillich shares a hope ( at least in finding courage) that speak to those Existentialism addressed but recovers something from Christian roots. It is a project that seems to take better advantage of Western history and Christianity's role in it as it was than Spong's dependence on speculations to salvage an acceptable image of Jesus.

This is not a book for a single reading. I've started already on my second reading and I am also reading more of Tillich, already The socialist decision and am planning to read soon A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Edited By Carl E. Braaten. I somehow overlooked Tillich all these years and I am eager to make up for lost time. The timing is good because, as Spong has described, I seem to be "a believer in exile", raised a Christian and, although having questioned much about it, still influenced by my Protestant upbringing and by the many writings such as those of the Existentialists, that proceeded directly from or in reaction to Christianity.

Finding "A Courage to Be" and Tillich may be a way for me to accept my background without rejecting what I have learned and felt since.

I purchased two books written by Paul Tillich for one dollar a piece at Half-Price books. One is this book particular title. I have heard of the author because RC Sproul has often argued his thoughts as a mischaracterization of Christianity and the relationship possible between God and man. Paul Tillich's philosophy is clearly contradictory to Christianity. The author clearly states his thoughts are not biblical; he plainly does not believe in a greater being nor does he like the Being described in the Bible. This book is about man's relationship to the universe absent God. It is an argument that one needs to have courage absent the security of traditional religion; there is no God in his philosophy describing right and wrong; there is no higher Being protecting you. His perspective is part pantheism. Man does not die to be part of a conscience state, but pure dust and part of the whole of creation. One may have a social conscience but there are no arbiters to determine what one think is correct. This book is about the implications of this Worldview and the implications of grasping this `truth".

I believe the author could have made a more organized and clearer argument. The language is clear and easy to understand, but the thoughts could have been more organized.

Tillich gathers strands from stoicism, theistic existentialism, dialectical thought and fideism in an attempt to weave a unifying belief-system. I don't think he completely succeeds in doing that. However, he does manage to express some spiritual insights. And it is in the mining these spiritual gems that makes the book a worthwhile read.

Many reviewers have voiced the opinion that Tillich's writing style is very difficult to read. I do not necessarily agree with this assessment. Tillich employs paradoxical language in an attempt to explain that which is beyond all words. At times, his writing is dry. But it is not terribly difficult to follow.

Here are some of the insights that I have gathered from the reading of this book:

- The human predicament is the estrangement of one's existence from one's essential being. This estrangement is sin.

- God is understood as "being" itself. And "being" is a "creative process."

- There's a dialectical tension between being and nonbeing. And "the courage to be" is the power of being to will itself, to overcome the threat of nonbeing.

- "Courage needs the power of being, a power transcending the nonbeing" pg. 155

- Existential angst takes on three distinct forms: 1) the anxiety of fate and death, 2) the anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness and 3) the anxiety of guilt and condemnation.

Tillich discusses at length the sociological implications of these three forms of "anxieties" as they played out in history.

At the heart of Tillich's discussion is the dialectical tension that exists between the individual and the group of which the individual is a part. Both the individual and the group are affirmed and denied. By affirming the self, the individual denies the group; by affirming the group, the individual denies himself. How does one overcome this conflict? By "the courage to be," and the "courage to be" is none other than faith itself.

"The 'courage to be' is the courage to accept oneself as accepted in spite of being unacceptable." pg. 164 This is Tillich's interpretation of the doctrine of "justification by faith."

I found Tillich's discussion of death to be very interesting:

"The courage to die is also the test of the courage to be. A self-affirmation which omits taking the affirmation of one's death into itself tries to escape the test of courage, the facing of nonbeing in the most radical way." pg. 169

We must learn to embrace death by taking death into ourselves. And it is with this acceptance that we affirm the "courage to be." It is only by dying, by dying to the self, that we are reborn to eternal life. Faith defined as the "courage to be" is where we derive the power of God, who is being itself.

Here are some examples of Tillich's paradoxical statements or aphorisms:

- "He who participates in God participates in eternity. But in order to participate in him you must be accepted by him and you must have accepted his acceptance of you." pg. 170

- "The courage to be is an expression of faith and what "faith" means must be understood through the courage to be." pg. 172

- "Faith is not an opinion but a state. It is the state of being grasped by the power of being, which transcends everything that is, and in which everything that is, participates." pg. 173

The major criticism that I have of Tillich's thought as represented in this book is that he failed to link the "courage to be" or faith with love. Ultimately love is the power of being. And God is not only being itself but also love. They are inseparable.

I read this book about three times as a child. It's a book that any dog lover can relate to, and presents it in such a way that children have loved it for decades. Must read for young (and old!) dog lovers!

I am a little irritated with Amazon. I ordered two books at once and received one but the other went to a different town and then was sent back. I could not find anywhere on the web site that I could contact anyone. I think customer service should be reviewed.

I actually got a few chuckles out of this book as well as quite a few tears at the end (who DOESN'T know what happens in the end?) of coarse. From what I can remember about this book, is that you can actually UNDERSTAND the speaking and of their way of life [to a certain extent(thanks Mr. Rayburn)] which makes reading it a whole lot easier. A must-read. For all ages (I think).

The book is about a wonderful dog named Old Yeller. The book is a little too violent with things such as: bull fights, hog attacks, etc., but the good deeds of the dog Old Yeller make this story seem special. In the beginning the dog did not seem so good. He did things like bark, yell, and steal meat, but then the good part comes out when he saves lives. I feel some of the really violent things could have been eliminated because they make this story scary. At the chapter before the last, a mad loafer wolf wants to attack Travis's family, so Old Yeller goes and fights the wolf. The sad thing is that poor Old Yeller catches rabies from this wolf. It turns out that Old Yeller sacrifices his life for his owners.
This part really does make you feel sad, but if you like stories about kind animal acts, and you do not get scared easily, then this is the book for you.

I know that this was made into a movie but I am not sure that I have seen it. I have some vague recollection that it's a Disney movie (so it must therefore be heartwarming, and also be the topic of a ride somewhere), and the actor who plays the protagonist Travis looks goofy. Most folks know the story already or will know it well enough after reading one or two of these reviews. Yes, it's about a boy and an unattractive yellow dog, and yes it has a sad turn of events. I can't say that this story or the storytelling is masterful, but there is a style of delivery in this book that is quite intriguing and no one comments on it. The circumstances of the story are quite rough. A young boy is left in charge of his mother and little brother in the wild Texas hill country while his father, relunctantly, must pursue a little gain on a cattle drive to Kansas. This is no small task, and long before the book is over, we see that at least two or maybe all three of the mother and kids would have died but for the happenstance appearance of said yellow dog (also noteworthy is the generosity and insight of the cowpoke who actually owned the dog but let Travis keep him). The life is hard and matter-of-fact, and the writing reflects it. The animals live in a practically different world, where life depends on instincts, species hate and kill other species and sometimes their own, and even bloodborne diseases have a scent that only dogs can detect. It's brutal. Old Yeller, our hero, bridges this world, and willingly devotes all of his animal kingdom powers for the protection of the humans that he inexplicably adopts and serves. The relationship between boy and dog is always a bit beyond the reader's reach. We never see these two playing fetch or lounging around under a tree. Their bond is one that is forged in combat and hard labor, and this hard practicality might ultimately explain Travis' ability to rationally and quickly make the hard decision to kill his pet. I don't think that it's a spoiler to state here that Travis must, in the end, destroy this animal - Gipson reveals that ending in the very first page of the book (and it is at the point of that destruction where the four great characters of this book - boy, dog, gun, and disease - collide). So, this is a world where the animals are the most cunning, strong, and fearsome, but it's a world that is dominated by Man, and in the end the loyal Old Yeller doesn't even know what hits him. That scene is revealed without sentiment or unnecessary drama.
One other thing. I wonder if it is this book, printed in the late 1950's, that "taught" popular culture everything that it knows about the dreaded hydrophobia. Growing up in the 1970's, I thought that rabies was everywhere, and that the only thing between you and going mad with foaming thirst was the time it would take for any old squirrel to drop on your head and dig in. Of course I also thought that finding a dead Bigfoot was only a matter of time, and that eating Pop-Rocks and drinking a Coke would make your abdomen explode. There must have been some other sources of this rabies phobia though, as this book did not go into any detail about some three week regimine of shots to the belly button in order to cure the disease once afflicted.
Anyway, good book. Read it to my three pre-teens and they loved it.

This book is used as a companion to my high school Modern European History AP class. We read philosophers which correspond to the time periods we are studying and have lively debates in class. The book gives enough background information to put each writer in historical context, and condenses each writer's work and ideas neatly and concisely. Some of the more difficult vocabulary is defined in footnotes, which can be helpful to students. If you're looking for an overview or comparison of different Western philosohers, this is a great book, but if you're looking to go in depth with any particular one, you may want to purchase a full version of the text you're interested in.