No comments about Rudolf Steiner and Initiation.

5 comments about Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It.

1. While this book is supposedly meant to be a "balance" between the "fundamental legitimacy" of the philosophies of these two men, it is more an apology for Sartre than any kind of a balanced introspective of two men who shaped much of French intellectual debate after WWII.
   Sartre essentially sat out WWII and offered up "Being and Nothingness" in 1943 while Camus not only wrote "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" in 1942, but was an active resistance fighter who fought the Nazi occupation of France. Sartre seems to have been quite envious of Camus' courage, but could never seem to be able to do anything but convert his loathsome cowardice during WWII into attacks (in the safety of salons of Paris) on Camus after publishing the venomous review of Camus' "The Rebel".
   Aronson's greatest failure in this book is to try to find a moral equivalency between Sartre, who supported violence in overthrowing colonial regimes except the colonialism of the Soviet Union which he supported, and Camus, whose virulent anti-communism was way out of the "mainstream" of much of European thought after WWII. While Sartre found every reason he could to support communist regimes around the globe, he ignored the fact that the Soviet system was really an evil empire far worse than any created by the West. Stalin's forceful death by starvation of over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union went un-noticed by Sartre as he condemned the "Imperialists" of the West. Only after the Hungarian uprising of 1956 did Sartre abandon his blind allegiance to the Soviet Union, while still supporting communist hegemony elsewhere.
   Camus, on the other hand is condemned for not supporting the overthrow of regimes installed by Western European nations, even though none of them came close to the brutal nature of Soviet imperialism in the Ukraine, Chechnya, and the other conquered satellites.
   Aronson's book however is really just another attempt by admitted academic leftists in the USA and other Western universities to hang onto a discredited economic system which has failed in every country it has been tried. This book is essentially not about Sartre vs Camus, but about how Marxism and its supporters have been given a bum rap. It isn't the system that is bad, but it was only implemented improperly. If only someone would just do it "the right way" then the utopia promised by Marx and his followers would be able to blossom and relieve us of the ills of capitalism. By offering a theory which places Camus and Sartre as moral equivalents, where a supporter of freedom of thought like Camus is equal to an opponent of freedom like Sartre, the left tries to level the playing field of history where the lessons to be learned are ignored or dismissed as an aberration. Only tenured professors who have never worked for a living or experienced the ravages of the philosophy he espouses could possibly write such a book. If you are looking for a book that deals with the issues that divided Camus and Sartre, you would be far better off reading "In Denial" or one of Jean Francois Revel's books.



2. is way off the mark. There's more to say about this book, but for now, let me just say that the guy above doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.



3. The friendship and then the falling out between Sartre and Camus is more than biography and tells the story of the Cold War in story book dialectical form. This account brings this self-reflective history to light, beginning with the period of the War, the Vichy regime and the Resistance, then the postwar euphorias of both authors as they become public intellectuals par excellence. Their friendship and vanguard solidarity conceals hidden differences, and as the Cold War gets into gear the divergence of 'lefts' finds its exemplars. It would seem sad in one way, and yet this encounter and division produced the dialectic needed to confront the legacy of Communism and capitalism in collision, as if a fated broil. Within a few years all the issues, later the stuff of endless discourse, were tabled, and the stakes clear til the end in 1989.



4. man myself)and it's difficult to stomach an "even-handed" (i.e., non-judgemental) account of his behavior during and after WWII, but, solely from the perspective of this work being a window into the relationship of, arguably, the two foremost French thinkers of the twentith century (and please don't throw-up Foucault, Derrida and crew against C & S) - it has considerable value and is worth the read.



5. I read this to learn about the relationship between the two protagonists, Camus and Sartre. Both authors were previously familiar to me through their writings and also via some incidental biographical material; what was not familiar was the story of their collaboration during WWII and thereafter, and the specific nature of their philosophical difference, blossoming as it did into a very public and influential break.
   
   This book was entirely successful in providing the information and analysis necessary to understand how two close collaborators, both very gifted and politically committed men, could come to be outspoken mutual antagonists. Especially interesting was Aronson's elucidation of the view of history each man held, and how the two activist intellectuals treated the tension between freedom and the seeming constraints of material reality.
   
   While it is helpful to have some familiarity with the work of Sartre and Camus, a prior technical reading of their philosophical outlook is not necessary. Aronson does a good job of presenting the subject matter as a stand-alone volume geared to what is sometimes called "the informed layman." This text is well worth reading, both for historical interest and presentation of the transcendent issues it addresses.

No comments about Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization).

1 comments about Becoming William James.

1. Psychologically informed, but with no psychobabble -- respectful of James, and of other members of that famous family -- but not uncritical. This is a terrific biography, which deserves many readers.

No comments about David Hume - The Mind of a Scottish Philosopher (Biography).

No comments about Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization).

5 comments about Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life : The Companion Book.

1. Many in this review section argue about whether this book is biased as it doesn't show Rand's flaws, about whether objectivism is a cult, etc.

   All of this misses the point. Whether or not she was a perfect person (of course she wasn't), whether or not this book is biased (it probably is), Ayn Rand was right. Her basic philosophy was pretty much the only moral, consistent, and life affirming one ever produced (whether or not she herself applied it perfectly). This book celebrates the only person ever to figure it out, and express it eloquently. Whatever her flaws or the books flaws, the world certainly needs (not deserves!) this book more than the countless other pieces of garbage out there.




2. A Child's Golden Book of Ayn Rand... Why in the world would someone take the time and trouble to publish a book without acquainting himself with the facts of his subject's life? This book is a superficial, riddled with errors and worthwhile only for the photos.



3. The story of a woman who said she would stop the motor of the world - and didn't.



4. This book is a fascinating portrait of Ayn Rand. It shows in engrossing detail the depth of her thinking and brilliance of her philosophy, Objectivism.

   As a companion to the Oscar-nominated movie this book is a great coffee table reminder of one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century; Ayn Rand's creation of a fully integrated, non-contradictory code of morality.




5. I had never heard of Ayn Rand till I spotted the DVD "A Sense of Life" in the local library the other day!!! I am a fan of documentary bios.,so wanted to take a look...film opened a new world to me...I had seen "The Fountainhead" with Cooper in the past..kind of a "soaper"...but this DVD brought a whole new perspective to me about a very interesting woman!!! I produce an access TV show where I live....I'm into film productions...found this a delight!!!

5 comments about On Jesus (Wadsworth Philosophers Series).

1. This is the first work I have come across that has seriously looked at Jesus as a philosopher. Groothuis begins this short introductory work, which is the format for each of the books in this series, by clearly defining what constitutes calling someone a philosopher and then just as clearly demonstrates that the historically verifiable Jesus is just as much a philosopher as the others in this series. He then discusses Jesus' use of argument, His metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and view of women. Any discussion of Jesus on any level must take into account the historicity of Jesus, an evaluation of His claims of deity as well as the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection. Groothuis does an admirable job, in a short format, to give a good reason to at least consider each of these as worthy of further study.

   While most people know of, or know Jesus, to varying degrees, as the central figure in the Christian faith, this book will be of great benefit to anyone interested in studying Him as a philosopher as well as evaluate His teaching and claims as philosophical arguments.




2. I was surprised at how easy and enjoyable this little book was to read. This book looks at Jesus as a philosopher and goes over his philosophical method of dealing with the objectors He faced.



3. The beauty of this work is its concise, logical examination of the mind of Christ. It offers a refreshing way to understand the New Testament's record of Christ's words and deeds through the tools of philosophical inquiry. In the process, novel meaning emerges from old, familiar texts, and Jesus himself is cast in a new light--that of a shrewd and skillful logician. The author details numerous classical lines of argument that Jesus employed in his dealings with both friend and foe, revealing a surprising degree of contextualization for the message he came to deliver. Christ is shown to have "packaged" his gospel message in terms that were not only quite familiar to his listeners, but impeccably rational and ultimately irrefutable.
   
   Groothuis also unveils a seemless consistency between the words, actions, and self-proclaimed identity of Jesus, using New Testament passages to make his case. As the chapters unfold, it becomes more and more convincing that the metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology of Jesus formed a singular, consistent whole. That whole included a worldview in which women were considered (and treated)as perfectly equal to men--a very radical position for the time.
   
   The reader begins the book with the interesting question of whether Jesus legitimately fulfilled the definition of a philosopher. Several chapters later it is obvious from the material Groothuis presents that Jesus is a philosopher par excellence, despite claims to the contrary by other writers and philosophers who took up the issue. Groothuis presents the arguments of these detractors and one by one exposes their logical inconsistencies. Yet by the end of the book a more interesting question emerges for the reader: What to do with a philosopher who made absolute claims about his own divinity? The fearsome logic of Jesus, as Groothuis clearly points out in the concluding chapter, required that he be responded to as either a kook, a demonic incarnation, or who he claimed to be--Immanuel ("God with us"). Like Pilate, no one had the option of just washing their hands of the God-man and walking away. Jesus demanded a response of his listeners--not just to his logic, but to himself. And so the reader, of necessity, is left to ponder his or her own personal response to this ancient peasant philosopher.



4. It is easy to fall into a rut in how we view Jesus of Nazareth, especially in an age of pop-culture takes on who he was. From Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" to Andrew Lloyd Weber's "Jesus Christ Superstar" to Joan Osborne's "What if God Was One of Us" we've become very used to looking at Jesus as just another guy.
   
   But if this is true, then why have people been fascinated or repulsed by the man and his teachings for centuries? Why did Red Communism ban the Bible? Why has modern scholarship been so divided over who he really was? Though he has inspired some of the greatest cultural reforms in the history of our country (abolition of slavery, Civil Rights, etc.), why is it that his name brings more "offense" today than that of any other religious icon (e.g., the buddha, Mohammed, or even Joseph Smith)?
   
   Perhaps Groothuis has something here. A good look at what the man taught and how he went about it makes a decision on who he really was unavoidable. The read is short, but Groothuis has a knack for packing large amounts of information into small amounts of text. The concepts are simple though the writing is academic, the vocabulary is well defined and the points are compelling and comprehensively documented. It's like rediscovering the goodness of fresh produce. And with that option available, why settle for fast-food pop-culture drivel?
   
   ALong



5. A rigorous academic examination of Jesus as a philosopher, as recorded in the 4 canonical gospels. A great primer for those who would like to know what Jesus is reported to have said, the context in which he said it and what it meant at the time to his listeners. Topics include his styles of argument, epistemology, ethics, worldview and views on women. A cogent analysis. The author's premise is Jesus as an intellectual who reasoned with the best of them. After reading this little book, I agree Jesus warrants recognition in this way. Seeing the logic of Jesus' positions, it is much easier to understand why he has been so influential to so many intellectuals over the centuries

No comments about Remembered For Love: Lao Russell Of Swannanoa.

No comments about Stanley Cavell (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus).