2 comments about Locke: A Biography.

1. This is a fascinating biography of the great Locke. It is well balanced in details of both the life and movements of Locke, as well as providing some concise discussion on his various works.
   
   I was left the thought as to just how Locke's works may have developed if he, like all in his age, did not have the threat of religious politics breathing down his neck. I tend to believe he would have been a lot closer to Hume if he had both lived in Hume's age and had Hume courage ( and lack of political ambition!)
   
   A great biography that almost demands to be finished in one sitting.



2. Although Locke's philosophical arguments must stand or fall on their own merits, our knowledge of his life and times nevertheless enhances our understanding of those arguments. Fortunately, Locke was a regular correspondent and journal keeper, so scholars such as Woolhouse can reconstruct both major and minor episodes in his life and convey something of his character. Woolhouse does an excellent job of weaving all of these strands together to produce a comprehensive account that, perhaps surprisingly, is highly readable.
   
   Different sorts of readers look for different qualities in biographies. Woolhouse's book will appeal to many. Readers of a historical bent will be most interested in the exciting and dramatic events of the 1670s and 1680s that unfolded around Locke--the Whig/Tory conflict, the religious struggles, the Glorious Revolution, and the advent of William of Orange. It is difficult to overstate the significance of these events in British, Dutch, and French history for the later development of Europe and for how the North American colonies would evolve, and it is interesting to see them from Locke's perspective, sometimes as an observer and other times as a participant. Readers of a more philosophical bent will be interested in the development of Locke's thinking in its historical context--for example, how he reacted against Cartesian rationalism and came to develop his empiricist theory of knowledge, or how he came to incorporate the older natural-law tradition into a comprehensive theory of natural (that is, prepolitical) rights to life, liberty, and property....
   
   Locke's contributions to epistemology, philosophy of mind, and theology are still staples of modern higher education, and his life would be worth studying in relation to any of these subjects. We feel his influence most strongly, however, in our political lives. When one studies Locke's political writings, their influence on the American revolutionaries eighty years later is obvious. By the 1770s, though, Lockean principles were no longer radical; they were commonly accepted because they had been the principles of the faction that emerged victorious in the English power struggle of the 1680s. So when Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the declaration was a highly effective rhetorical flourish rather than a plainly false epistemological claim. If Lockean principles were widely accepted in England, then how could the English deny the logic of the colonists' position? The later development of a system of government predicated on natural-rights theory, as remarkable as it was, did not arise in a vacuum. It had antecedents in history. By studying these antecedents, we can understand our own times better. Because Locke was such a crucial figure in this story, Woolhouse has done us all a great service by producing this biography.

2 comments about Leo Strauss: An Intellectual Biography.

1. 
   Daniel Tanguay has written what is perhaps the best introduction to Leo Strauss's philosophical journey, a book that should be helpful for anyone interested in Strauss's thought.
   
   At the beginning of the book's conclusion, Tanguay summarizes the book's main purpose:
   
   "The name of Leo Strauss is generally associated with the attempt to revive the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns and with the proposal for a return to ancient natural right in order to protect liberal society against the deviations introduced by relativism, radical historicism, and nihilism. We have sought to show that this theme certainly does not constitute the essential problem in Strauss's thought, which can be genuinely understood only to the extent to which it is put into relation with its central problem, that is, with the theologico-political problem. Strauss himself claimed that this was 'the' theme in his inquiries" (193).
   
   Defending liberal society and reviving the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns are certainly two of Strauss's aims, but his primary philosophical interest emerged in the 1920s, while he was studying Spinoza and experiencing the theologico-political problem firsthand as a Jew in interwar Germany. What is clear, however, is that the theologico-political problem goes far beyond `the Jewish Question' and extends beyond the Jewish world. The problem emerges in the tension between politics and religion and between theology and philosophy.
   
   Strauss originally sought to discover whether the philosophical critique of revelation, in its most radical, Enlightenment form, had succeeded, and he began a long study of the history of philosophy to find the sources and forms of the theologico-political problem. His journey took him from Spinoza, Hobbes, and Machiavelli back to Maimonides and the `Islamic Aristotelians'--especially Farabi--and in the process he rediscovered the art of esoteric writing. Tanguay does a fantastic job drawing out how Strauss's thought and writing style changed after this point, which Tanguay appropriately names `the Farabian turn.' Strauss's text "Farabi's `Plato'" emerges as one of the key documents for understanding his thought.
   
   Strauss moves after his reflections on Farabi to `the ancients'--specifically, the zetetic philosophy of Socrates and Plato, of the skeptic in the original, ancient meaning of the term--and explores the deepest conflict in Western intellectual history, the conflict between Jerusalem and Athens, a metaphor for the theologico-political problem. Strauss ultimately sought to revive the dispute between the two Western ways of life--between philosophy and revelation, between the life defined by philosophic eros and the search for wisdom and the life defined by the fear of God and obedience to the divine law.
   
   Leo Strauss has been getting a fair bit of bad press lately (and some good press as well). Reading the criticism, one gets the suspicion that, unlike Strauss's critics of the mid-20th century, his current critics have not actually bothered to read very much, if anything, of what he wrote. Before making political or character judgments about Strauss, it is probably prudent to seek for oneself what he thought and what he believed. This book can be useful here.
   
   Also, behind Professor Tanguay's exposition of Strauss's scholarship is the person of Strauss. While that is not Tanguay's main subject, it is extraordinary, reading this book, to see Strauss's personal struggle as he makes his intellectual journey. In his heart and mind he lived the conflict between Jerusalem and Athens, between his struggles with the Jewish tradition and his love of philosophy. I must admit that I felt a connection with Strauss when reading these parts of the book--after all, in the Jewish tradition, Israel/Yisrael can translate as `Godwrestler,' and Strauss wrestled with some of the most fundamental questions in both revelation and philosophy. It is also fascinating to read about Strauss's focus on the permanence of the questions of revelation and philosophy, and how cautious and reluctant he is to suggest sweeping solutions to them or to the theologico-political problem. The questions and problems are central for him, not the answers, and this attitude brings with it a certain nuance and what ultimately amounts to an invitation from Strauss, an invitation to study the questions, even though answers may ultimately elude our grasp.
   
   Daniel Tanguay deserves congratulations for writing this book. The biography is lucid, useful, and succinct, and Strauss's thought becomes more coherent after reading this book. It is probably helpful to have read some of Strauss's works before reading this book, but not all of them. Anyone approaching Strauss for the first time can probably get a sufficient introduction by reading Tanguay's biography and Thomas Pangle's edited volume, 'The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism,' which is also an excellent introduction to the main themes of Strauss's thoughts. Strauss's difficulty is often exaggerated, but it is true that it can at times be unclear what the guiding problems are for him. This book identifies and explores them, and can serve as a useful guide when reading Strauss. It is an extraordinary book.



2. Tanguay's superb book was originally written in 2003. That makes it the first major study that was written about Strauss in either English or French. In spite of my praise of the volumes written by the Zuckerts and Pangle, this is the best introduction to Strauss that I have yet to read. (If you can judge the quality of a philosopher by the quality of his/her interpreters, then Strauss was quite good.)
   The reason for the superiority of Tanguay's effort is ironic. His book is by far the most Straussian interpretation of Strauss. One of Strauss' basic hermeneutical principles was that the reader should first attempt to understand the author as the author understood himself (see pp. 2-4 of the intro for Tanguay's discussion on how he read Strauss). Strauss also emphasized the importance of reading an author while being "moved by the suspicion that perhaps his teaching contains the truth about the Whole" (p.3).
   I think that both the Zuckerts and Pangle are concerned about reading Strauss in such a way as to deflect somewhat his implied critique of the American regime. Tanguay doesn't care about that and that allows him to present some of the edges of Strauss' thought more sharply.
   Tanguay believes that the key to understanding Strauss is his relentless focus on the theological-political issue. Strauss came to the issue early in his life as a Jew in Weimer Germany and his focus on that issue only sharpened. Tanguay is superb at examining the early texts of Strauss, e.g., Spinoza's Critique of Religion or Philosophy and Law, for how they mark the stages of development of Strauss thought on this issue. Tanguay focuses on the essay, Farabi's Plato, as a critical turning point in that development. Strauss' readings of some of the philosophers of the Medieval Enlightenment (Farabi, Maimonides, Halevi, etc.) led him both to a new understanding of Plato and to his famous theory of esoteric/exoteric levels of writing. ( By the way, this is one area where I disagree with Tanguay. He asserts throughout his book that at this point in his career that Strauss began to write esoterically. Dunderhead that I am, I just don't see it unless you limit the meaning of the idea. I do not believe that Tanguay really provides any examples of this in Strauss. If anyone who reads this believes they know of one, please comment. I need educating!)
   Tanguay is really good at drawing out all the unresolvable tensions that are to be found in Strauss' beloved Athens vs. Jerusalem problem nexus and his theological-political problem. Along the way Tanguay provides some remarkable insights about the way Strauss saw the philosophical tradition. Tanguay suggests that (in Strauss' reading) Plato's ideas are not metaphysical entities so much as philosophical issues. Thus the Idea of justice becomes the issue of "what is justice" or "how do we behave justly?" Regardless of whether this is the correct reading of Plato, it is a fascinating one and suggest some ways in which Strauss' thought might be usefully compared to someone normally held far from him, say, Dworkin.
   Another interesting point. Tanguay feels that Strauss does not quite see that to see the theological-political problem in terms of Athens-Jerusalem or in terms of revelation-philosophy is to place the issue solidly in a historical context. Socrates knew nothing (as far as I know) of Moses or of the giving of the Law (Torah) at Mt. Sinai. For us to see the problem in the light of this juxtaposition is to assume the superiority of our historical insight, something that Strauss would be loath to do (Tanguay's discussion starts on p.212 and, trust me, is far richer than my summary).
   Another small complaint I have with Tanguay is that he doesn't engage with Strauss' later writings. As suggested by the train of his own thought, in his later years, Strauss focused on his reading of the ancients, thinkers like Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes. None of these later books are examined in Tanguay or, for that matter, in the Zuckerts or in Pangle.
   This is a small complaint about an excellent book. Tanguay has done us a great service in explicating a difficult and undervalued thinker. He is also a great stylist as a philosophy writer. [My title is a quote of his (p. 214) which perfectly summarizes one of Strauss' central insights]. I have read quite a few philosophers and historians of ideas and the good writers are few and far between. I look forward to reading Tanguay's next work regardless of subject matter.

5 comments about Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (P.S.).

1. Wittgenstein's Poker was delightful. This is not. It's filled with detail that is not compelling nor germaine to the issue at hand. It may be the issue at hand is really not that interesting. Hence the need to pad it with redundant details.
   
   The best thing that could have happened to this book is a good edit. It's worth about half to two thirds the pages used to present a relatively simple tale of two radically dissimilar spirits and intellects. Perhaps if it had focused on these elements in more depth it may have produced the substance the authors try to conjure. As it is there really isn't the stuff of drama and the information packed into the book is only mildly interesting. It reads much more like gossip than their previous effort. Though such were the times.
   
   I like the premise these authors have set out. There IS real drama within the history of philosophy and the debates that philosophy has engendered. There may be here. I'm not sure. But I wasn't convinced by this read.



2. I bought this book with high hopes and expectations. I wanted to learn about the clash of Weltanschauungen between these two formidable thinkers (this is what the subtitle "Two Great Thinkers At War In the Age of Enlightenment" hints at) and to become more familiar with the ideas they upheld. Unfortunately, this is not what the book turned out to be about. In all fairness, the authors did a remarkably detailed and superb job in documenting the history, circumstances and reasons behind the clash of Rousseau's and Hume's PERSONALITIES and SENSIBILITIES; but 273 pages and a week of solid reading later, I was no closer to BETTER understand the philosophies of these two figures than when I first began. I am left wondering if the time and effort I invested in this book was worthy, after all. Anyway, what are we to make about a friendship that started off with such great promise, only to shipwreck with great bitterness on both sides a few months later? Let their story be a warning to us all: people with conflicting sensibilities are better off avoiding each other like the plague. I have met my share of whimsical, paranoid, mentally agitated people, a la Rousseau: they brought nothing but the worst out of me, just as Rousseau did with Hume. In the end, in the conflict between these two thinkers, I unhesitatingly come down on Hume's side, who blamed Rousseau's weirdness, ungratefulness and mood swings for the breakdown in their communications (are you reading this, women of my past?) The way both thinkers come across as PEOPLE in the book has definitely discouraged me from pursuing further readings they authored: in other words, if I was superficially suspicious of Hume's skepticism and of Rousseau's views on equality and human nature before I read this book, NOW for sure I will cross off their names from my list of authors to read. Guess what I am going to read next with great expectations? "The Courtier and the Heretic."



3. On one hand, it's possible to see this book as a description of a petty clash between two important-but-all-too-human intellectuals that elicits no more than a "So what?" reaction now. And that would be quite accurate. It's somewhat disconcerting to read about the foibles of two Great Minds and realize that you wouldn't want to be stuck in a stalled elevator with either one of them.
   
   On the other hand, this is a fascinating look into the affairs (sometimes literally...) of what the authors call The Republic of Letters. The famous spat between Rousseau and Hume took place at a time when all of the important thinkers, writers, and authors in Europe knew one another and communicated regularly and voluminously. This is even more notable because so many of the classic big names in philosophy and literature were citizens of that Republic of Letters.
   
   Among the participants in and observers of the clash between Rousseau and Hume were Voltaire, Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, Edmund Burke, Horace Walpole, Adam Smith, and many others. The interplay among these notables, all of whom had sizable egos, is what makes this book so interesting.
   
   Edmonds and Eidinow seem to specialize in recounting disputes between notable people, and that's what they do here. In reality, the dispute between Rousseau and Hume came about because Rousseau had a paranoid meltdown, and Hume reacted in an completely disproportionate manner. But in the hands of Edmonds and Eidinow, it serves as a way to recreate a lost world-- The Republic of Letters-- and to make that world real.
   
   So, the reviewers who criticize the book as nothing more than petty gossip are right, but they are missing the point. The functioning of The Republic of Letters is in reality the main character and the point of this book. It is well worth reading.



4. First, a note or two about some other comments about this book as philosophy or not.
   
   Edmonds and Eidenow don't make that claim, any blurbs aside. But, they do presume at least an enclyopedia of philosophy or Wikipedia page knowledge of the main philosophical ideas of Rousseau and Hume. For people complaining they didn't learn anything new about the philosophy of either one, that's not the thrust of this book.
   
   That said, what does this book have?
   
   Above all, insights into a very human David Hume, exemplified above all by his overreaction to Rousseau, including misreading his comments about the possibility of getting a British royal pension.
   
   I think E&E could have done a little more digging, or at least offered a little more speculation, on Hume tut-tutting Holbach, Grimm, and d'Alembert when being warned he was taking a viper to his breast. Did Hume tut-tut because he thought a change of climate would help Rousseau? Or had "le bon David" let Paris "press clippings" go to his head enough that he thought he could succeed with Rousseau where these others had failed?
   
   The attention to detail that some deride is warranted, I believe, as "scene-setting."
   
   That said, though, perhaps a little more scene-setting of Rousseau's relationship with the philosophes might have been helpful.
   
   Overall, this is definitely one of those books where I wish Amazon had half-star ratings. A 3.5 would be perfect for this book. But, with some of the unreasonable 1-star ratings, I think it needs the half star bump up, not down.



5. I have read several accounts of the Hume-Rousseau events, but this is the only one that I have read that attacks Hume with so little regard for the truth or for justice.
   
   Edmonds and Eidinow have done a great job of spinning Hume's kindness into something quite the opposite, but even they admit:
   
   1) Hume, having never met Rousseau, agrees to help Rousseau seek asylum in Britain (as Rousseau had warrants out for his arrest in France, Geneva, and Bern).
   
   2) Hume tries to find accommodations for the picky Rousseau; eventually, a friend of Hume's provides a home for Rousseau that meets all of Rousseau's requirements.
   
   3) Hume tries to get Rousseau an income from the King of England.
   
   4) Rousseau, after safely in England, falsely accuses Hume, his benefactor, of plotting against him. This accusation is without any real evidence of any kind. Hume, understandably, is surprised and upset that his kindness has met with such a reaction.
   
   5) Hume still wants his friend to provide a home for Rousseau, even though Rousseau has been monumentally ungrateful and unjust to Hume.
   
   6) Hume still tries to get an income for Rousseau from the King of England.
   
   7) When Rousseau departs from the safety of England, Hume tries to have mutual friends and acquaintances in France protect Rousseau from arrest.
   
   Notice, 5, 6, and 7 all occur AFTER Rousseau's unjust and unprovoked attack on Hume, and Hume still was trying to help the ungrateful and unjust Rousseau. Many lesser men would have washed their hands of the ungrateful swine, and done nothing for him ever after, but not the kindly Hume.
   
   Hume, being interested in his literary career, and being well aware of Rousseau's persuasive poetic writing, was concerned with how Rousseau might spin their falling out. So, after much back and forth thoughts on what to do (starting immediately after 4 above), Hume decided to publish an account of the whole matter (which occurs chronologically before 7 above). This, and the letter writing to tell his friends what had happened and to ask for their advice, are the sources of most of the accusations of Edmonds and Eidinow against Hume. Given the volatile and unpredictable Rousseau, Hume had no way of knowing whether or not Rousseau would print lies about him at some point in the future. In fact, Hume withheld publication until after notices appeared in some newspapers suggesting that Rousseau was planning on printing about the matter. In fact, Rousseau never printed a very full account of the matter (though he hinted at it in print), but we cannot know what he would have done had not Hume published an account of the matter. So, whether Hume "overreacted" or not is hard to say. And even if Rousseau would not have published a bunch of lies about Hume anyway, Hume had no way of knowing that Rousseau would not do such a thing (it is easy for us to see, after all the parties are long dead, that they did not in fact print more than they did, but it could not be known in advance that they would not print more). In any case, it is much easier to judge such matters from a distance, with materials that Hume could not have had at the time, than when one is embroiled in false accusations against one's character.
   
   Edmonds and Eidinow criticize Hume for ignoring the warning of d'Holbach that by helping Rousseau, Hume was "warming a viper in his bosom". However, Hume had also been encouraged by his friends to help Rousseau, notably Madame de Boufflers, with whom they say Hume was a good friend, and by the time of d'Holbach's warning, Hume had already committed himself to helping Rousseau. If he had then refused to help Rousseau, instead of Edmonds and Eidinow criticizing Hume for ignoring the warning from d'Holbach, they would have criticized him for going back on his word to help someone in need.
   
   Edmonds and Eidinow criticize Hume for not writing to his friend Madame de Boufflers first, and instead of writing to d'Holbach before de Boufflers, after the falling out with Rousseau. However, given that de Boufflers was a friend of Rousseau, and had led him into this mess, and d'Holbach was the one who had given Hume accurate advice previously, it would have been foolish for Hume to assume that he would be better off with advice from someone who got him into the mess than from someone who tried to get him to avoid it in the first place.
   
   Edmonds and Eidinow accuse Hume of lying to Rousseau, when Hume denied knowledge that some of Hume's acquaintances had. Apparently, Edmonds and Eidinow believe that acquaintances of Hume always immediately told everything they knew to Hume, and were completely honest with Hume, as if that were what acquaintances always do! The reality is, with Hume's claim of not knowing certain things that some of his friends and acquaintances knew, we really have no just reason to accuse him of lying. They may or may not have told him what they knew. Justice, however, seems as far from important to Edmonds and Eidinow as it was to Rousseau.
   
   Additionally, of Hume's kindness in seeking to protect Rousseau from arrest in France, Edmonds and Eidinow state:
   
   "So the affair ended just where it began, with Hume involved in schemes to save Rousseau. However, in the context of Hume's unforgiving mood--his distortions, his assertions of madness--this final "assistance" appears more tainted by vengeance than moved by charity." [p. 260]
   
   If trying to save someone from being arrested for his writings is "vengeance" against him, I certainly hope others have a "vengeful" attitude toward me. I suppose the saying, "no good deed ever goes unpunished" is true.
   
   They also repeatedly call Hume's responses to Rousseau "violent", when all he did was write letters and publish an account of the matter. Violence, indeed!
   
   It is also interesting that Edmonds and Eidinow go out of their way to praise Rousseau, though, of course, they also include many strong criticisms of him, as it would be impossible to deny Rousseau's well-known vices to anyone even somewhat familiar with him. They seem to have been seduced by Rousseau's poetic and persuasive writing, in which he blamed others for his own faults. Too bad he did not put his great skill to better use. Edmonds and Eidinow seem also to be moved to sympathy for Rousseau's plight (of being in risk of prison and mobs attacking him for his writings), and that Hume should have been nicer to him. The reality is, Rousseau was the proverbial dog that bit the hand that fed him, and he deserved far worse than anything Hume ever did to him. Indeed, Hume was still looking out for him after the falling out (see 5, 6, & 7 above). Hume was interested in protecting his own reputation, which is why he was interested in publishing his account of what happened. Had Hume really been the malicious and vengeful person that Edmonds and Eidinow pretend he was, he would have wanted his friend to turn Rousseau out of his house, and have wanted to block the income from the King of England, and would not have wanted their mutual acquaintances and friends to protect him from arrest later on in France. Vengeance and malice are not compatible with Hume's actions on those matters. Edmonds and Eidinow quite literally do not know what they are talking about. Either that, or they are simply malicious and unjust; take your pick.
   
   In short, this book is a bunch of biased propaganda attempting to tarnish Hume's reputation.

5 comments about One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers.

1. Well, I can't pretend that I understood it. I didn't understand "Sophie's World" either. I prefer the format of this lay textbook over the device of the bizarre story of Sophie's World as a structure for didacticism though I admit the bizarre stuff was there to illustrate the philosophical points. I read "One Hundred Philosophers" quickly to see what was available in it but would need to study it with additional texts to go in- depth and attempt to understand the actual philosophy.
   
   I bought the book because it links together disjointed pieces of information. I think it's a good starting point and I intend to use it as a reference book rather than having to go on the net to find the same information.
   
   It's amazing that I'm encountering beliefs out there that I've been reading about in the book and can easily refer to for discussions. There's some surprising individuals in the book to read about, real eye-openers. There are also patterns of biography depending on the era cited e.g. starting out as a theological scholar and getting side-tracked into philosophy.
   
   Some of the woman philosphers' lives make sad reading, early deaths and in one case matyrdom. In contrast, some of the men lived to great ages.
   
   As well though, I saw a pattern of philosophers being repeatedly exiled, tortured, imprisoned and executed for their beliefs though this isn't happening with the latest Continental and Anglo-American ones featured! I found this book so worthwhile I felt inspired to buy one for my 14 year old neice as a great introduction to the valuable and deep subject of philosophy.
   
   Funnily enough, I bought it as one of a selection of books available in the tea-room at work among the usual recipe and typical prosaic lifestyle selection. It was a great buy for $NZ12 (New Zealand).



2. This is the kind of book you - as a philosophy lover, I assume - can keep on your centerpiece or desk somewhere easily accessible for reference. It's very visually pleasing and organized, so you can spend hours reading about this and that philosopher. Its limitation lies in the explanation of the philosophers' views, which summarizes a lot and as a result you cannot hope to learn much from it content-wise. If your goal is to learn some philosopher's views well, this is not the book for you, but if you want a quick reference for philosophers' time periods, historical heritage, theoretical orientation, etc., it is great.
   
   Conclusion: a good pick if its purpose is understood as a reference, as a poster noted below. The point is to talk about the people rather than the ideas. It will not engage you in deep ideas, but will tell you a bit about a great many thinkers.



3. I bought this book after taking an introductory philosophy course in college. I had a deep interest in the subject, but not a very strong background. If you are like me, then this book will be a great starting point for you. Do not expect to find any great analysis of any philosophical theories, or even any opinions on the theories of the various philosophers. In fact, some of the philosophers are covered very briefly, and we are given only the most basic information about them (where they were born, where they studied, what kind of family they came from, where they died, etc.). However, having said that, this book WILL provide you with the basic knowledge of the most influential philosophers so that you may embark on your greater journey into the world of philosophy. It clearly deliniates the beginning of philosophical thought and it's transition to modern philosophy and as most reviewers have stated, it is very well structured and organized. Every major philosopher that you have ever read about/heard of is in this book. I strongly encourage any and all readers interested in a philosophy background to purchase this book!



4. I got this as a Christmas present to my dad, but found myself wishing I had got it for me. I'm one of those kinds of people that wish I knew more about this and that philosopher, but aren't sure where to begin. I've heard lots of the names in this book but never really knew what they believed, but the book goes over it quite well.



5. The book provides a thumnail sketch that is very helpful. However, if you need in depth information this is not the book. It offers an easy to read format and concise.

5 comments about Socrates: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. Chris Taylor has produced an apalling book. Impossible to read, convoluted and meandering, 'Socrates' appears designed to make philosophy less accessible to the average reader than more. It is strange that Oxford would publish such a jargon-filled book as an introduction. Most of the text deals with Socrates' background and his historical context. This is fine in theory, but leaves little space to explain the philosopher's work. When Taylor finally gets around to Socrates' position, he seems to assume that the reader has a full understanding of the philosophical lines of thought of the time (eg. the sophists, the cynics). I finished the book having no idea of the meaning of Socrates' key belief, that "knowledge is virtue". Taylor uses visual language that confuses rather than clarifies his arguments, such as "a keystone of the arch". The conclusion is a good example of Taylor's absurd style: "Every age has to recreate its own Socrates. What is his significance for a post-Christian, post-idealist epoch for whom neiher the figure of a precursor of Christ nor that of the embodiment of the world-spirit in its development of a higher form of consciousness has any meaning?"



2. Like so many classicists, Taylor's writing style will repel all but the most pedantic scholar. Instead of a book that engages general readers as well as scholars (it is possible to do both), this book is a dry summary. Taylor's narrow, unimaginative approach fails to capture the greatness of Socrates. The book also does not provide the historical context of ancient Athens that is important in understanding Socrates, the most inspiring philosopher in history. Interest in the classics has declined considerably in recent years. Sadly, this book will only contribute to the decline.



3. Prof. Taylor teaches philosophy at Oxford University, and clearly knows his subject. However, his writing style leaves much to be desired. He tends to be convoluted and verbose, with too many parentheses. This is fine for an academic paper, but not for "A Very Short Introduction". He is worst in the first three chapters, in which he reviews Socrates' life and historical context. His discussion of "the Socratic problem" in chapter 3 drags at times, but if you plow through it, ends up being actually pretty good. However, it does not compare for clarity and crispness of reasoning with the discussions of the problem by Prof. Vlastos.
   
   Taylor's style does not improve in Chapter 4, on the Socrates of Plato, but I found that in spite of his occasional incoherence there is something of value in this chapter. He does a good job of laying out Plato's approach to the problem of the nature of morality, and his ultimate failure in that project. His comments on Plato's defense of Socrates against the Sophists are quite good, although I've just started The Republic myself, so I may have to revise this opinion later.
   
   Chapter 5, Socrates' influence on later philosophers, including the Skeptics, Cynics, and Stoics in the Hellenistic period, and then in the 19th century Hegel, Kierkegaard,and Nietzsche, was quite illuminating. All three 19th century philosophers were obsessed with Socrates, and each saw him and used him in his own unique way. He emphasizes the kinship between Socrates and Nietzsche in particular. This is clearly the area that interests Prof. Taylor most, where he put in most of his effort, with good and useful results. His style is noticeable tighter and clearer in this chapter.
   
   Those who have no background in philosophy at all should not start with this book. Those who are in the process of learning some philosophy, perhaps at an intermediate level, should with a little patience find something of interest here. Those who wish to have a deeper understanding of Socrates life and thought should, after reading this book, by all means go on to read the two volumes of the master, Prof. Gregory Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, and Socratic Studies.



4. This is book presents a comprehensive and very detailed introduction to Socrates. The book provides an overview of Socrates' life as well as an overview of the primary and secondary literature regarding Socratic scholarship. Socrates is one of most elusive philosophers of the Western tradition, given that he never wrote a single word. Primary knowledge of Socrates is derived from the Socratic dialogues of Plato and Xenophon, Aristophanes' comedy "The Clouds," and less significant references and fragments. Although I agree with other reviewers that this text is indeed too advanced for the introductory reader, it contains so much detailed information that it will prove to be a useful reference to be consulted over and over again for guidance. Taylor's navigation of Socratic literature (Ch. 3), although perhaps too ambitious for a short introduction, is impressive and shows the signs of true scholarship. As an "introduction for advanced readers," so to speak, the book is a success, given that it is saturated with detailed information regarding Socratic literature. However, for the introductory reader, such detailed information may be too overwhelming.



5. Good book. Helps you understand Socrates a little better than by just reading his works.

2 comments about Truth Imagined.

1. 
   
   Anything and everything by Eric Hoffer is always fascinating; this story of his life, and his responses to dozens of people he met, is no exception.
   
   This is book is an adventure, his life as a bum and the experiences until 1942 which shaped his personal outlook and created his rugged individualist philosophy of life. His first book was the classic 'True Believer' in 1951, significant enough to help shape the ideas of President John F. Kennedy. Hoffer is deservedly famous for it and 10 other such books. This one should be read in connection with any of them.
   
   Originally published in 1983, near the end of his life, it covers his career up to the start of his career as a longshoreman/intellectual in San Francisco. One element dominates, his insatiable curiosity and interest in other people. For that reason, he would undoubtedly object to be called an "intellectual". Yet, the term fits; this book appeals to the intellect, and he was an intelligent and informed person.
   
   The difference is how he related to people and ideas; many modern intellectuals relate only to books, documents and other abstractions. When Hoffer read Michael de Montaigne he "felt all the time he was writing about me" because he had learned the same sort of common sense and practical wisdom from the bums, hobos, homeless and other drifters who were always a part of his life. As Casey Stengel once said, "You can learn a lot by listening".
   
   The five paragraphs of his 23rd Chapter are a gem for every historian, fully equal in common sense and beauty to the Biblical 23rd Psalm. Skip the first paragraph if you want; the other four explain history and Hoffer better than anything else I've read.
   
   "History is made not by irresistible forces but by example," sums up Hoffer's style; an aphorism in the style of Montaigne, with the power of dynamite. Like dynamite, history is deadly if the anecdote is wrong, and such errors are easy to make; but, in the hands of a good historian, it shows how everyday events are illuminated by history.
   
   His 24th Chapter explains far more of modern economics than anything from Adam Smith to Alan Greenspan; had either economist learned to sum up Western Civ more astutely, the world would be far more peaceful, benign and just. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, with only $50 in hand, Hoffer learned a society without money means "there is no freedom of choice, since it is ruled by sheer power, and no equality, since brute force cannot be distributed."
   
   These two chapters, 11 short paragraphs in all illustrated by two clarion anecdotes, are worth the price of the book. The rest is interesting in explaining how he reached these two ideas and became one of the most significant intellectuals -- he'd prefer "thinker" -- who is more relevant today than ever before.



2. I first read The True Believer over a year ago. No other book has made more of an impression on me. The insights into human nature it contains never cease to amaze me. I refer to it often and I never fail to be amazed at how current events prove Hoffers assertion correct over and over.
   
   I was rather surprised when I read this autobiography of hoffer. I was surprised at how small the book was and slightly surprised at how little he discussed writing The True Believer. The book describes Hoffers life as a transient and the many characters he met and worked with during this time. There are enough entertaining stories in the book to keep any reader engaged, even if youve never read any of Hoffers books.
   
   Reading the book really gives you an idea of just how intelligent Hoffer was. Hoffer was knowledgable on a wide range of subjects, from Chemistry and Philosphy to advanced Mathmatics and all sorts of sciences.

5 comments about Soren Kierkegaard: A Biography.

1. It may seem astonishing to many that a nearly-900 page biography of Soren Kierkegaard would ever be described as riveting, or as a page-turner, but that is exactly what this book by Joakim Garff, translated by Bruce Kirmmse from the original Danish, turns out to be. I first noticed it at the bookstore of my seminary, and, intended only to read through a few pages at the beginning to be somewhat familiar with the text (having a friend who is very into Kierkegaard), I noticed when I next looked up that I was 60 pages into the book, and half an hour late for my next appointment.
   
   As Garff states in his preface, biographies of Kierkegaard are few and far between. Even in his native Danish language, 'biographies of Kierkegaard that have appeared since Georg Brandes' critical portrait was published in 1877 can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand.' Part of this was Kierkegaard's own stated desire that readers read his works, not into his person, and he often published under pseudonyms. However, this is an ironic situation, Garff writes, because Kierkegaard puts so much of himself into his writing that there are definite autobiographical elements. Israel Levin, Kierkegaard's secretary for many years, also recognised the paradoxical situation in dealing with a Kierkegaard biography - 'this is a life so full of contradictions that it will be difficult to get to the bottom of his character.'
   
   One of the things Garff should be credited for is not trying to force a particular paradigm or interpretation on Kierkegaard. We don't discover 'Kierkegaard the existentialist' or 'Kierkegaard the religious rebel' or other such personas here - rather, these elements and more are all interwoven into Garff's text to show a complex and not always comprehensible figure. Garff is neither a true-believer nor an official apologist from any set place - he instead set out 'not only to tell the great stories in Kierkegaard's life but also to scrutinse the minor details and incidental circumstances, the cracks in the granite of genius....'
   
   Kierkegaard was a troubled and troubling figure. His life was very brief for someone with such a prodigious output - he lived only 42 years, and his productive time as an intellectual was really only half that time. Garff organises the biography chronologically, taking a year-by-year approach (after putting Kierkegaard's childhood and adolescence together into one chapter, 1813-1834), each year being devoted to its own chapter. In this fashion, Garff looks much more closely at the events and relationship in Kierkegaard's life (both personal and institutional relationships) rather than systematically looking at themes and ideas in his works.
   
   Garff seems to assume some familiarity with Kierkegaard's works at various points - this is not a critical analysis of Kierkegaard's thinking, nor is it even necessarily descriptive of his work in many cases. However, the biography is accessible to those who do not have much experience with Kierkegaard (and I must count myself among those; I have read a few of Kierkegaard's works, and a few analyses, but would never consider myself an expert on the subject).
   
   As translator Bruce Kirmmse states, the book is done in a rather conversational style with an informal sense about it - it is not a dry and dusty historical tome. Not being familiar with Danish, I cannot but take his word that this is true of the original text by Garff, but given the reading here, one cannot imagine that Garff or the editors would have been happy with it done in any other way had this not been faithful to the original. In keeping with this more informal style, there are endnotes rather than footnotes. There are nearly three dozen illustrations (paintings, photographs, other line-art and maps), an extensive bibliography.
   
   I will dare to say, as ironic as it may be both to the subject of reading the biography of a philosopher as well as to the subject of this particular figure, this was a fun book to read.



2. K fans-and in this day of badly needed freely speaking Danes, who is not one?-can at last rejoice. Here finally is a book about SK that makes clear the Corsair magazine affair, the matter of K's trousers and thin legs and curved back and how he took his coffee (strong with lots of sugar), the unending engagement to Regine, and oh yes K's attack upon Christendom.
   
   
   Garff is learned, witty and a master prose stylist. Under a photo of K's elder brother Peter Christian we read...'Irresolution seems almost to shine forth from the eyes...' A self-promoting K enthusiast named Sommer is described as having the 'zeal of a plagiarist.' One could go on and on, and Garff's observations always seem to hit the mark.
   
   Also wonderfully, there is nothing here about 'the father of existentialism.' Garff tells the life, and leaves the impact on the future to others.



3. First published in Denmark in 2000, Joakim Garff's massive and monumental biography of the "melancholy Dane" makes its English debut just in time to commemorate Kierkegaard's death exactly 150 years ago ( November 11, 1855). Anyone who has taken a college freshman class in western civilization or philosophy has a vague familiarity with the name, if not his thought, and some have even dared to tackle his complicated and brilliant work of "indirect" communication via pseudonyms and his later "direct" (and was it ever direct!) communication under his own name. In grad school I took a turn at Kierkegaard, and even now in my office there hangs a poem by him thanks to my wife's calligraphy:
   
   Herr! gieb uns blöde Augen (Lord, give us weak eyes)
   für Dinge, die nichts taugen, (for things that do not matter)
   und Augen voller Klarheit (and eyes full of clarity)
   in alle deine Wahrheit! (in all your truth!)
   
   Kierkegaard prefaced his work The Sickness Unto Death with this prayer-poem.
   
   Although a wild diversity of interpreters from existentialism to deconstructionism has claimed Kierkegaard as their own, and although SK's personality and complex oeuvre present any biographer with an extraordinarily difficult task, Garff shows that he is rightly understood as an artist-poet whose focus was distinctly and deliberately religious. He treats the reader to large doses of SK himself, and reviews all his major writings and journals, focusing on Kierkegaard's life and not really his thought. In this sense he treats Kierkegaard personally rather than intellectually or theologically. He starts with his early years, and proceeds year by year. I would have enjoyed an epilogue that took a stab at Kierkegaard's ecclesiastical, pastoral, and theological legacy. How did a writer in backwater Denmark whose books had print runs of 500 copies (only one of which sold out), whose grave remained unmarked for twenty years after his death, and who barely traveled, emerge as one of the most seminal thinkers of Christian history?
   
   Throughout his short life (1813-1855) Kierkegaard battled a pronounced and chronic melancholia that resulted from a number of factors--his pietistic and stern father, his public humiliation in Copenhagen's rollicking newspaper the Corsair, his sense of victimization, his scathing denunciation of the Church of Denmark's chief bishop (Mynster), and his broken engagement with Regina Olsen. His hypochondria did not help, nor did his estrangement from his lone surviving sibling (his five siblings and mother all died by the time Kierkegaard was about 20). For much of his life, he tells us, through a monumental effort of repression, diversion, and displacement, Kierkegaard distracted and protected himself from his melancholia through his prodigious writing. And there is no doubt that his melancholia served as a fund for enormous artistic creativity and interior reflection (a fact not lost on psychiatrist Peter Kramer in his recent book Against Depression). Writing was his therapy, he once observed: "I saved my life by telling stories." Like Mozart, he just might have been the artistic genius whose sickly body could hardly contain its pulsating brilliance.
   
   What infuriated Kierkegaard was pious pretense, intellectual sophistry, the evisceration of the radical Gospel, and a bourgeois religiosity that tamed Christianity of what he called its "terror." The state-paid clergy, he sneered, derived social and financial gain from the Gospel: "In the splendid cathedral, the high, well-born, highly honored, and worthy Geheime-General-Ober-Hof-Preacher, the chosen darling of the important people, steps before a select circle of the select, and movingly sermonizes on a text chosen by himself, namely, 'God has chosen the lowly and despised of the earth'--and no one laughs" (p. 773). Since no one laughed at the discrepancy between genuine Christianity and the pale imitation of cultural Christendom, Kierkegaard intended to provoke a collision or catastrophe between the two. This was train wreck by design. He was an agitator and pyromaniac who employed his literary brilliance to utilize satire as an act of arson: "I am the one who has set the fire in order to smoke out illusions and trickery" (p. 774).
   
   Garff honors his subject but does not ignore his faults. Kierkegaard could be unctuous, petty, shrill, cynical, inaccessible to anyone he did not care to see, and vindictive. One subject of his lethal pen lamented, "he could make you feel small." His father was one of the wealthiest people in Denmark, and it was not lost on his critics that Kierkegaard never worked while he enjoyed an extravagant lifestyle. But he had little money at his death, and financed most of his own publications. One observer complained that while Jesus cried over Jerusalem, Kierkegaard employed dripping sarcasm to laugh at the church.
   
   There is something like a scorched-earth smell in Kierkegaard. It is hardly news that the church "swarms with many faults" (John Calvin). I rather like the choice of the feminist Catholic writer Joan Chittister who describes herself as a "loyal member of a dysfunctional family." Still, we can thank Kierkegaard for never letting us forget the ideal, how far and so self-servingly we fail it, and forcing us to consider what it might mean for each one of us as a "single individual" whom he addressed.



4. I have read a number of reviews of this book. They are unanimous in acclaiming it the definitive Kierkegaard biography, both in its comprehensiveness and its readability. It tells the story of Kierkegaard's life year by year, with special emphasis on what happens from 1835 when he was twenty- two to his death in 1855. The biography places special emphasis on the literary poetic Kierkegaard. It does not interpret in depth his varied and paradoxical philosophical and religious works. It does however provide the valuable biographical information which can enable us to better understand those works.
   Mankind has few geniuses and when they come along they shock us into a new awareness. It is possible to argue that where Kierkegaard most shocked was in his emphasis on the 'lived life' the 'real experience' the 'authentic encounter with God' .And this as opposed to the false, formal and protected encounter.
   This of course is the major reason why the Existensialists, including the atheist Sartre could find a true predecessor in him.
   Kierkegaard 's labors in decrowning Hegel, and in showing the official Church to be at odds with the true experiencing of Christianity were couched in a language, ironic, paradoxical, parabolic and witty. The pseudonymous authors who spoke for various sides of his personality enabled him to express sides of a personality which always wished to remain somewhat hidden, secret and mysterious.
   I have read only a small part of this work and am very eager to read more. And this because Kierkegaard like Kafka is one of those thinker- poets one of those supreme individual masters of their own way of writing in the world as to to seem to me as for so many others, a true spiritual forbearer.



5. My husband is reading this aloud to me. Although it is taking us a long time, we are close to the end now. It has been an incredible read and is written in a very accessible style.
   It has been a really great book to read aloud as the translation is beautifully done and the humor, both of the subject (Kierkegaard) and the biographer (Garff) shines through in every chapter. The translator (Kirmmse) must be very gifted.
   I would recommend this book to any student of history, theology, or modern thought and literature. Kierkegaard was a remarkable thinker and his humanity, genius, and foibles as a human being are evident in his own writings and in this beautiful and mesmerizing biography.

5 comments about Making Sense of It All Pascal and the Meaning of Life.

1. Making Sense Of It All is one the best books I have ever read on the topic of Christian philosophy and apologetics. This book is unique both in its organization and content. Morris utilizes some of the scientific, philosophical, and apologetic statements of the great Christian thinker Blaise Pascal (from Pascal's book Pensees) and shows how faith in Jesus Christ is the unique answer to mankind's deepest yearnings for meaning, purpose, significance, and life eternal. This book skillfully and successfully answers many of the existential objections that people give for not believing. Morris weaves together many of Pascal's brilliant insights into a significant and powerful Christian apologetic work.
   
   Though covering a lot philosophical and theological ground, this book is remarkably readable and at places quite humorous. It addresses philosophical, theological, and apologetic issues with tremendous clarity and in an engaging style. This volume provides deep insight into why people living in today's world avoid thinking about ultimate issues. I only wish the book contained a bibliography and/or notes for further reading.
   
   Thomas V. Morris has been called one of Christianity's finest contemporary philosophers (former Notre Dame professor). This book is indeed evidence of his first rate philosophical ability.



2. this is a very insightful philosophical/theological book dealing with the plight of humanity in relation to faith in God and the meaning of life. There are a few things herein that will no doubt be disagreed with by many readers, but the many deep insights otherwise are well worth it.



3. Tom Morris is a gifted writer and philosopher. This book amplifies Pascal in ways you may not have thought about before, and it clearly intriques the critical mind about the possibility of the Truth behind Christianity. The leap from mind to faith doesn't seem all that large after reading this enticing book.



4. This is a great book, which takes diverse sources such as Pascal and Woody Allen and probes the reasons why most of us waste our lives on trifles and baubles, distracting ourselves from our mortality and avoiding life's big questions. The book is part fun, part serious as it makes Pascal's inquiries into human nature very readable. The Christian and nonChristian alike should enjoy this study of how people waste their lives and how they can find meaning. Two great companions to this book, though more secular, are Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning and Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving.



5. I honestly don't know what to say about this book. It's written by a prominent Christian philosopher, Thomas Morris, who draws on Pascal's Pensees to give an analysis of faith, reason and the human condition. The writing is clear and conversational, the topics are profound, and some sections -- such as the discussion of skepticism -- are gems of lucidity. But boiled down to its essentials, the Pascal/Morris argument goes like this:
   
   -- People without faith in God are unhappy and wretched, and spend most of their time covering up and denying their unhappiness and wretchedness;
   
   -- Therefore, God must exist, because believing in Him makes people happy, if only because it ensures that they'll be cared for in the afterlife;
   
   -- In fact, God must be the Christian God, the father of Jesus and one of the Trinity, since hoary old "miracles" and "prophecies" attest to the authority of the Bible.
   
   That's Pascal's argument in a nutshell. Really. It's that flimsy. All the focus is on knocking down atheism as an untenable way of life. Once that's accomplished, a fairly doctrinaire form of Christianity is treated as the natural default position. No consideration is given to other religious options -- even though most religious traditions can boast "miracles" and "prophecies" of their own. No consideration is given to the possibility of forging an atheistic life of courage and decency. Bad faith reigns supreme: Pascal appeals to Christians looking for practical reasons to keep up Christian practice even though they suspect Christianity is false.
   
   I love the Pensees, but their elegant aphorisms and sharp insights can obscure the absurdity of the total argument. The same is true of Morris's book. It's a good reminder that Christian philosophers should keep their philosophy separate from their Christianity.

No comments about The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

5 comments about Spinoza: A Life.

1. Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), an early figure of European Enlightenment like a Netherlands Descartes or Giordano Bruno, - he fought with his publications for the inauguration of modern times, influenced by sober reason - but still caught in the historical context of a society, which was ruled by the dictatorial interests of confessions and government cabals.

   During Spinoza's lifetime (only 45 years) Amsterdam probably has been Europe's most alive, free and multi-cultural large city - the true mother of Nieuw Amsterdam = New York. As freely however, that anyone could philosophize, whatever he liked to sermonize - no, that wasn't possible staying completely unpunished.

   Many of the perforce secret supporters of Spinoza (publishers, booksellers, authors) landed in the prison or in banishing. Most glaringly is the story of the brothers Johan and Cornelis de Witt, who had protected Spinoza, providing him with food, money and legal support: A furious mob of Monarchists and Calvinists in 1672 got them out of prison and carried out a lynching court in the style of that time: they mangled the bodies and pulled out the hearts, showing them full of triumph to the audience - many of the members of the aristocracy, sitting in carriages. A very anarchistic version of almost forgotten Inca- and Aztec-rites. Only with strive Spinoza's friends could prevent him from posting a placard near the site of the massacre, reading ULTIMI BARBARORUM (You are the greatest of all barbarians).

   Spinoza's family, Jewish, harassed by the Inquisition, had escaped Spain like thousand others to find refuge in the Netherlands, which showed more toleration. Spinoza's first thinking results, which regarded the Bible as an historical writing collection of different humans (thus by no means written by God), led him to be excommunicated from the Dutch community of Portuguese Jews. The autocratic Sephardim rabbinical leadership wrote 1656 in beautiful calligraphic letters: "As to the judgement of the angels and statement of the holy we banish, curse, bewitch and condemn Baruch de Spinoza. Beware of operating with him verbally or in writing, beware of proving him the smallest favor, beware of reading his books..."

   The remainder of his life (like an early forerunner of the famous Anne Frank, who was hidden by Amsterdam citizens from Nazi pursuance) Spinoza hid mostly in small grave chambers of rooms and he lost all the wealth of his family business. Secretly he was supported by friends. Additional he earned money by lens grinding (but the sharpening of glass caused an early death: the inhaled dust destroyed his lungs). Convinced of the correctness of his thinking he as long as possible continued writing, persistently and annoyingly - however anonymous.

   He did not want to die in public at stake like his forerunner Giordano Bruno in Rome 1600. Spinoza was fascinated by the hypothesis of a Pantheism, first developed by the efforts of Giordano Bruno. In his "Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect" he defined God as ruled by the same causes like nature ("deus, siva natura"). At that time neither the Jews nor the Christians had been ready to accept such dogmatic changes or at least to tolerate such opinions (which of course weakened the religious authorities).

   A large city is - today like at that time - characterized by the fact, that trends in different parts of the society are not simultaneous. The aristocratic, bourgeois, working class or religious circles always have different speeds. The intellectual circles, sympathizing with Spinoza, seemed to live already in the 18th century.

   Because Spinoza, inspired by Hobbes, also risked to formulate basics of a democratic society, he came immediately into conflict with the Netherlands Orangists, who controlled the state. The mob, brought to a level of puppets as well by the princes as by the clerical - the mob was not enlightenmentable by the shy and sensitive considerations of a cautiously hidden publisher.

   We would have to thank Spinoza (if it would be possible) for his persistance, which helped to develop modern constitutions of states and stabilized the opinion, that a religion must not be monopolized, but, in the contrary, has to follow individual interpretations as well. With regard to September Eleven and the US-reaction against fundamentalist assaults we faster could decide, how to response. I think: not using military, but using reason: no religion should lead us to a Crusade or a "Reverse Crusade" anymore. Monopolizing trends of denominations should be stopped. By the name of Spinoza!




2. I simply could not relate to this book, a reaction which may or may not reflect an adequate idea.



3. Steven Nadler skillfully guides the reader not only through Spinoza's life but also through the turbulent times of the 17th century Holland. All the more useful ride to enable us to see the courage of an outstanding man, citizen, a brilliant philosopher who taught us that GOD is Nature and us. Great reading!



4. The book give a great details about the life during the inquisition time in Spain Portugal & Holland..
   Is has a very good view about the terrible consequences of fanatics in the Catholic religion, and show why the world was intellectually almost paralyzed during the dark ages of the religion terror.
   
   However, the book only give small inside about the wonderful philosophical thinking of Spinoza, is more a historic book than a philosophical one..



5. Emotions are to be avoided, religion is inherently illogical, only rational philosophy can bring you contentment, free-will is a myth; these are the tenants of Spinoza and, yes, the credo of all Vulcans. All these years of trying to get a sense of Spinoza and 3/4 through the book the image of Mr. Spock came floating through the text. Think about it, if Spinoza was successful in changing the metaphysical paradigm of western civilization, we'd all be Vulcans today. Seriously, this is a good book for any serious Spinozists, and puts into context the genius and guts that was Spionza as well as the remarkable period of tollerance which was the golden age of the Dutch Republic. I would suggest reading Yirmiyahu Yovel's, "Spinoza and Other Heretics" for anyone interested in getting a sense of the Pre-converso environment of the Marranos.