5 comments about Kierkegaard in 90 Minutes (Philosophers in 90 Minutes).

1. Strathern is a master at this kind of work, which mixes biography, critical analysis, historical context and humor all in a concise, informative & entertaining package. He lists a time line for the philosopher, his place in world/philosophic history & a selection of works for furthur reading. This series of books by Strathern is a wonderful course in Philosophy 101 without ever having to go to college, all presented in plain, easy to understand English without being bogged down with philosophy's often confusing vernacular. If you are expecting an in-depth review or complete analysis of the philosopher's life & work, read another book. This is meant to be a quick, concise overview & that's just what it provides. There's suggested readings listed in the back for people who want to investigate Kierkegaard's life & works more thoroughly.



2. This book should have CAUTION written on it, as it is dangerous. Let me give you a few examples:

   1) On page 7 it says, "Kierkegaard wasn't really a philosopher at all. At least not in the academic sense." If we say that academic philosophy does not recognize Kierkegaard as a philosopher we must also recognize that Kierkegaard thinks academic philosophy is a nest of charlatans and liars who have no right to judge his work. For Kierkegaard, Socrates is the paradigmatic philosopher. Imagine, for a moment, Plato's dialogue Protagoras. There is Socrates, who receives no money for teaching because he has nothing to teach. There are, on the other hand, the sophists, who claim to be able to teach the Sciences, real knowledge, in return for pay. Who does the academic philosopher resemble: Socrates or the sophist? Who does Kierkegaard more resemble? If Kierkegaard is not a philosopher, how is Socrates one? Certainly, Kierkegaard never claimed to be a philosopher (despite his Doctorate in Philosophy), calling himself a poet, but it must always be remembered that this is because he holds academic philosophers in contempt.

   2) On page 8 is the claim that Kierkegaard invented existentialism, a claim about as absurd as Socrates invented philosophy or Jesus, Christianity. Sartre invented existentialism and then enlisted "precursors" to support the claim that he hadn't. Existentialism is one interpretation of Kierkegaard's work and is probably not the best one. Now that Post-Modernism is all the rage, Kierkegaard is being seen as Post-Modern (see Both-And by Michael Strawser). The problem is that what you bring to Kierkegaard is what you get out of him and if you are looking for existentialism in Kierkegaard, you will find it, whether its there or not.

   3) In the chapter on "Life and Works" one of the most pervasive and difficult to dispell error about Kierkegaard is presented as fact. The author describes the pseudonymous authorship as Kierkegaard's attempt to disguise himself. This is true enough. The problem is that a pseudonym did nothing, in a small town like Copenhagen, to disguise his identity. Everybody in town knew who the author of Either/Or was. So clearly to say as the author did, "Once again Kierkegaard found himself in a pickle. . . .Put simply he wanted to hide behind a pseudonym, yet at the same time he wished to make it obvious it was a pseudonym"(p. 35) is disingenuous. Hello, I think everybody is going to figure out that A and B are not real names. I don't think he needs to signal people that these are pseudonyms. So what has Kierkegaard got to hide. Himself. He is trying to get free of his own history. He creates, not just pseudonyms, but characters which themselves embody philosophical ideas. By coming to understand the expressions, concerns and moods of these characters, a careful reader comes to understand a philosophical idea (for instance, in either /Or A embodies the aesthetic existence sphere and B the ethical sphere). There is a danger therefore in talking too much about Regine Olsen or Michael P. Kierkegaard as the source or meaning of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works. Then one has a source for pat answers about Kierkegaard's meaning with no real interpretive depth. As long as one continues talking about Kierkegaard upbringing or his engagement one risks a surface interpretation displacing any hope of a deeper understanding.

   I suggest Douglas Mullen's book Self-deception and cowardice in the Present Age, or Parables of Kierkegaard by Thomas Oden as alternatives.




3. The timelines and bibliography are good. Otherwise, I would say this book reminds me of an offhand attempt to dispose of a topic the author has little interest in or sympathy for. Just to make the series complete. Shallow. If you want to read a much better Kierkegaard intro, try Donald D. Palmer's Kierkegaard for Beginners. It takes a little longer than 90 minutes, but it's written with gusto.



4. This book was dismal. Not only did the author fail to address Kierkegaards main ideas, he completely rewrote who Kierkegaard was disregarding or not knowing that Kierkegaard had responded to many of his "insightful" critiques. There were many false assertions in this book, but I will only list two.

   (1) Paul asserts that Kierkegaard believed that humans should ethically cease to procreate so that God's work could be finished. Where did Kierkegaard ever say this? Paul draws this notion from Kierkegaard's decision to remain single in order to devote himself to writing. Kierkegaard would never have made such an idiotic absolute statement about something that he would see as relative to one's walk with God. This is one example that shows a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Kierkegaard. This bias colors the whole reading experience.

   (2) Paul asserts that in Kierkegaard's description of despair, Kierkegaard contradicts himself by asserting being as opposed to becoming. One can easily see the synthesis of the two if one has but a little knowledge of Christianity. An individual in him or herself is becoming and is not yet finished. An individual in God is a finished work, aka being. God according to scipture is the author and finisher of a believers faith. A believer in time is becoming. A believer in eternity is complete. Paul's confusion comes from making becoming and being logically opposed (infinite becoming vs eternal being?). Kierkegaard sees one leading to the other.

   This book is a waste of time. Paul does not understand Kierkegaard as well as he would like his reader to believe. According to Paul, it is amazing that Kierkegaard had some good ideas mixed in with all of his rubbish. Unfortunately, Paul's book is pretty much pure rubish.




5. What would Kierkegaard have thought about this book?
   He would have perhaps appreciated Stathern's humor, his narrative skill, his quickness of mind, his emphasizing Kierkegaard's thought as directed not to abstraction but to 'lived life.' But he probably would have resented the effort to reduce the complexities of his thought, their contradictions and dialectical intricacies to easily digestible form.
   For Kierkegaard 'difficulty' in itself has a value, and the path of the true truth seeker is not one which can be achieved readily, easily without suffering.
   The essence of Kierkegaard can only be found in confronting his own complex, and highly qualified prose.
   I like Strathern's books very much, but it seems to me here he chose a subject not especially amenable to this kind of treatment.

No comments about The Noble Savage: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1754-1762.

1 comments about Ernest Hemingway: Rediscovered.

1. This coffee table book utilizes wonderful pictures of Ernest Hemingway to show "Papa" is numerous lights. Most pictures center around Hemingway in his years at the Finca Vigia. We see candids of Hemingway aboard the Pilar, or at work in his standing position in his Finca's tower. There are a few questionable facts.(They said that Hemingway's pet "Blackdog" was found around the Finca, when most scholars say he was rescued in Idaho). Still, this book is a must simply for the pictures alone. Out of numerous biographies about Hemingway, Fuentes chooses woderful candids I had never seen, plus wonderful photos of Hemingway's personal possesions, and the Finca as it is today. A must for Hemingway buffs.

5 comments about Lives in the Shadow With J. Krishnamurti.

1. I just finished this book in July 2007.I had read most of K's books by the early 1980's and had developed a certian affinity with his way of looking at life in its complexity and complete nakedness.I think K expressed alot of insights into the human condition in ways that knowone else quite has.
   He really knew how to take the paint down to the metal as it where and get you to look at things objectively through the process of elimination and sincerity.
   That said I also think any idea that humanity could come to live in the mental and spiritual framework he portrayed was completely naive on his part.Paradoxically I believe in turn that made him feel somewhat superior to others when they challenged him or couldn't grasp his words.
   I think this book portrays all of that very well and the fact that not only could humanity not live this out but ultimately neither could K.
   Much like the greek philosophers I believe he contradicted himself in his own idealism and really didn't understand the true nature of human selfishness including some of his own.
   I don't believe Radha was being vindictive by writing this book and I think she really loved K dearly and struggled with these contradictions in K's life herself for many years.
   There is no doubt that she takes a few little diggs at K throughout the book but she also portrays the beauty and complexity of the life her family had with him and the overall picture she paints I believe is is quite honest,heart felt,true and clear.
   The book also gives some very clear detailed insights about K's up bringing from childhood on that are quite fascinating psychologically.
   "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which please believe me I am not trying to do here but as much as I appreciate K in certian ways I still feel he was a bit of a prima donna and lived a very cush,pampered and spoiled life.The funny thing to me is that I had always intuitively sensed this since long ago and this book very much confirms these thoughts.
   As insightful and perceptive as K was I think in the end he was as human, frail and fractured in his own way as all the rest of us and so may God Bless Krishnamurti and rest his soul.And as K always use to ask what is love? and as the good book says.
   
   4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love seeketh not itself, is not puffed up,
   
   5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil;
   
   6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;
   
   7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.



2. Radha Sloss wrote this book primarily to expose Krishnamurti's affair with her Mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, therefore if someone is looking to learn more about K's life, this book will not provide him/her with much insight. It is obvious that Radha is basically a spokesperson for her Mother and her attitude towards Krishnamurti, though he was like a Father to her, turns into contempt and resentment as the affair begins to fall apart. Rosalind's letter exchange with K. is not available for legal reasons and though it seems conceivable that they did have an intimate and affectionate relationship that lasted for many years, it also becomes quite obvious that Rosalind was extremely jealous, possessive and obsessed with K. and this book served her as a way to vindicate her pain after the affair ended. It's sad that such private matters had to be exposed, especially for K., who was already dead when the book was published and could not respond to any of the allegations. Krishnamurti himself never claimed he was chaste; he just claimed his private life wasn't important. His intimate relationship with Rosalind based on mutual love and friendship shows no contradiction or hypocrisy in his teachings. It is important to understand that it wasn't really an affair, since Rosalind and Raja never had a true marriage (right after Rosalind gets pregnant Raja in fact announces to her that there is no need to live as man and wife anymore, and many passages refer to Raja's tacit consent to this romantic relationship between his wife and K.). Raja's and Rosalind's marriage seemed more of an arrangement based on a profound bond of friendship, friendship that had indeed existed between all three of them (K., Raja and Rosalind) for many years before any romantic bonds were established.
   I read the book in hopes of learning more about who K. was, but felt a bit disgusted with the petty details of personal conflicts which Radha was trying to settle in the public eye.



3. Despite Krishnamurti's repeated misgivings about hero worshiping of Gurus, we're back to square one. What personal difference does it make to an individual whether Krishnamurti was a philanderer or a monk? Why should one be bothered with his presumed shortcomings, when he always carefully distanced 'the speaker' from the message? Did he ever ask for the reader's, or the listener's approval of his personality? Did he ever say 'follow me'?
   
   If someone begins to idolize him after reading his work, and is later shattered to read criticism ( that might be true ) of his person- then the whole point of Krishnamurti's writings is lost on the reader. If one cannot differentiate between the message and its bearer, (s)he does not yet possess an unperturbed mind to dispassionately contemplate.
   
   Let's face it- the greatest human beings are imperfect and fallible. Their greatness is not in the absence of, but despite their failings. Even Ram(a), considered to be an ideal man, the greatest spiritual figure in Indian lore, made questionable decisions. Those great men after whom the major religions are based, also will find critics.
   
   People have asked of Krishnamurti- 'If he cannot live it, who can?'
   And if they cannot separate the man from the message, have they asked of themselves- 'If this were true, and if I could not forgive this man after all he has done, who could I forgive?'



4. It's hard to say and understand....because when I read about Krishna's life story...not Krishnamulti; but the real one. He also had a spritual lover, Redha (??) and later on he married to a beautiful princess and had four children. I guess in India or Hindu you do allow to get married even you're a God reborn or holy man. In fact the existance of this affair asnswered the question why Krishnamult didn't attend their wedding. He probably already attracted to her when they were together. He seemed easily attracted to young caucasian women in his early years. He did say he was longing to be a monk (sansyi ??) and be alone, away from the human beings during those years. To my humble opinion, if your mind is so full of God and love Him so much then you can not love another physical human being...a woman or a man and have a physical sex relationship with this person. I believe in his teaching or his words...the path is formless and pathless. He did awakening the Kudalini engery and made his way to see the masters, Beloved ones....but nothing can last forever, that's life. Life is a strange thing and no one can predict the outcome. Should the result be different if he married R.R and ended the affair? Maybe not...cause maybe they would end up to have a divroce. We are all human and we made a mistake one way or the other. We can see K. as a teacher and maybe teacher also allow to make mistake. Maybe we can accept it if we don't see him as God. He is not God, never was and never will be.
   
   K. is just a messager. He sent out the messages from the other dimension for those who tries to make a break through to see it. That's what he decided for himself the purpose of life. We all need to have a pruspose to live on. We should see it as a tragic he has made such a mistake and dimming the light and feel sympathy for his loss to the power of woman....temptation. The scandal itself and it's consequence is the biggest punishment he has asked for and deserved. Be compassionate.



5. It was no secret that K had a long term relationship. He told some of his close friends about it. It's a private matter anyway. Radha's account on the other hand is not an expose, it is a nasty, malicious character attack of a man who is dead and can't defend himself.
   
   Her book is filled with logical inconsistencies: conclusions that simply do not add up. A book by someone who totally missed the boat for those who've missed the boat and are looking to rationalize it. Radha wrote to me that ultimately because of freedom of speech she can say anything she wants. That's how she justified the logical inconsistencies!! Too bad she didn't have the guts to do that when K was alive.

5 comments about Love, Freedom, and Aloneness : A New Vision of Relating.

1. OSHO's insightful writing will quench the thirsty and open-minded. His words resonate deep truths that leave me laughing outloud. Love & highly recommend this priceless book. His take on football - Thank God finally - someone puts in writing my exact sentiments and brings it home beautifully. Great Job OSHO!



2. Great insights about Love (Unconditional Love better said) that makes you recondition the meaning of love as that it has been opposed on all of us by the society. Love without attachments.



3. This book is a must have for any human being that wants to learn what it is to have an authentic relationship with oneself and others.



4. Simply put, this book is a "must read" for anyone who meditates with the hope of achieving enlightenment. It contains wisdom about your spiritual energy that you will not find anywhere else (except in Sex Matters, also by OSHO). If you have ever felt an insatiable craving inside, a void that cannot be filled, a deep yearning for love, then this book will help you make sense of that feeling and find the way "to the other shore," to joy and fulfillment. Read it, cherish it.



5. I loved this book and passed it on to my younger brother plus an ex-boyfriend and recommended it to my sister because it is such an amazing book. It is indeed true that you cannot truly love another human being until you are free and are comfortable and confident in your aloneness. All I can say is that this book just confirmed what I already believed.

3 comments about Inside of Time: My Journey from Alaska to Israel.

1. What an amazing woman. Ruther Gruber is interviewed on BookTV.org. Don't miss the book or the interview!



2. A role model because of her age, sex, and faith. I didn't find out much about Alaska but was captured by her involvement in her world. It was a different time. Could her experiences be repeated today?



3. this book takes one to alaska -to the people who work hard and take pride of their state. we meet the people who are proud of their state.
   ruth gruber went to israel as a correspondent during a difficult time in their history.we learn a lot of the country and the places that she lived in and visited.

2 comments about C. I. Lewis: The Last Great Pragmatist (S U N Y Series in Philosophy).

1. The entire 2006 winter number of the journal TRANSACTIONS OF THE C. S. PEIRCE SOCIETY was devoted to a "Symposium" about this important book. A dozen or so philosophers, historians, and logicians - chosen by the editor Peter Hare for their knowledge of Lewis's work - wrote critical essays on different aspects of the book. Each essay is followed by a reply by the author. The first essay "C. I. Lewis: History and Philosophy of Logic" (pages 1 to 9) was written by John Corcoran, a historian and philosopher of logic known for his sympathetic interpretation of Lewis's logical writings. The following are excerpts from Corcoran's essay. 1. "The welcome and long-awaited publication of Murray Murphey's masterful intellectual biography C. I. LEWIS: THE LAST GREAT PRAGMATIST (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005) is occasion to reexamine Lewis's contribution to this field. Thankfully, Murphey saw fit to include ample discussion of the logical aspect of Lewis's wide-ranging thought - which in its full scope goes far beyond history and philosophy of logic. As Murphey indicates, logic was a small part of the Lewis legacy. He is regarded as a towering figure by many who have little or no appreciation of his great achievements in history and philosophy of logic." 2. "C. I. Lewis (1883-1964) was the first major figure in history and philosophy of logic - a field that has come to be recognized as a separate specialty after years of work by Ivor Grattan-Guinness and others. Lewis was among the earliest to accept the challenges offered by this field; he was the first who had the philosophical and mathematical talent, the philosophical, logical, and historical background, and the patience and dedication to objectivity needed to excel." 3. "Lewis's judgment that Boole was the founder of mathematical logic, the person whose work began the continuous development of the subject, stands as a massive obstacle to revisionists whose philosophical or nationalistic commitments render this fact inconvenient. Lewis's articles and books form an essential part not only of history and philosophy of logic, but of logic itself. His criticism of lapses in rigor in PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA served to notify generations of logicians that proof was not to be identified with formalistic manipulation of esoteric formulas."



2. Great Biography of a Great teacher and Philosopher in the great tradition of American Pragmatism. Points out the difficulties in the Material Implication that has bummed out students of Logic for years. Probably the best teacher of Modal Logic as well. The Biographer does a good job showing Lewis' place in American Philosophy.

No comments about Xenophon: Memorabilia (Agora Editions).

No comments about William and Henry James: Selected Letters.

2 comments about On Wittgenstein (Wadsworth Philosophers Series).

1. Hintikka has no sensibility whatsoever for understanding Wittgenstein's achievements in logic and the philosophy of psychology. He treats LW as a 'dyslexic' with personality issues due to his abandonment of great wealth. Rarely have I read a published work on LW which shows so little understanding of what he accomplished, especially in his post-TRACTATUS period of enormous intellectual fertility. LW's LATER work has been a source of inspiration in psychology, sociology, anthropology and linguistics to those who truly made the effort to understand what he was doing. Hintikka strikes me as utterly out of his depth here, perhaps because he is incapable of liberating himself from his irritating proclivity toward logicist regimentation. There is not a shred of insight in this meagre little book, but a whole load of self-flattery. Indeed, Hintikka regales the fine work of Peter Hacker as "less ambitious" - and that about a man who has spent his entire academic life producing several lengthy volumes of exegesis on the work of Wittgenstein, as well as several highly original Wittgensteinian analyses in book form. This was a paltry and often contemptuous little piece of work. Ignore it.



2. I found this book to have used jargon and brevity at the points when it critiques LW and to be mean-spirited when it mentions the works of others. The author also takes an approach to LW's worh through a questionable diagnosis that he was dyslexic. While this an interesting angle, it's not enough to hang an introduction on.
   
   Finally, the book has numerous spelling and other editing errors.