surveys

it is always strange to read a book which seems - in some ways - to be written out of a "god-like" perspective, and it keeps me wondering, how anybody could be that wise or consider himself to be. strangely enough, the more you believe in the writings of james allen, the more they will come true. you dont need to test that in your own life, its common sense, regardless of the "absolutistic" claims here.(being german i am trying my best to get my message across).

when I think about the fact that a human being has written this, sometimes i get annoyed, because the words come across as if written by someone who can not err. however, i also dont feel I want to ask questions like: well, mr. allan, what did YOU achieve? what I care about is if there is value in the writings for myself. after all, I feel that any blah blah trying to contradict him would lead nowhere and be counter-productive.

what it boils down to is that it is refreshing to be educated by someone who is - for sure - a master when it comes to thinking about things...(and thoughts, of course). the lectures go down smoothely. reading the little book is almost like a prayer, a reversed one, some high, strict authority is talking to you. the words might sting you, depending on who you are, but they dont leave you unguided at the same time. it is the essence of a thousand books written. it is a must-read. short. and sweet. and bitter.

Ever feel like your life is out of control? Got a bad attitude that you can't get rid of? Do you find yourself complaining a lot? Maybe you think it's your circumstances or the people around you that are responsible. James Allen doesn't believe it for a minute. It's all in your head. Literally.

Allen writes, "Out of a clean heart comes a clean life and a clean body. Out of a defiled mind proceeds a defiled life and a corrupt body." We ARE what we think. It's not mind-over-matter. The mind IS matter. You can improve your circumstances, your surroundings, your station in life...but until you conquer your thoughts, nothing will really change. When your mind is pure, your body, your language, your actions...all will follow.

Whether you choose to believe Allen or dismiss him, AS A MAN THINKETH will occupy your mind far beyond the time it takes you to read its 72 pages. Read it. And think about it.

The greatest invention of all time - started in someone's brain. The visionary.

What is amazing is that we are all visionaries. However because a negative visionary is not called a visionary, we don't perceive ourselves to be visionaries. This book shows you that you too are a visionary. You do create your own future. That said, what type of future do you want in your life?

Zev Saftlas, Author of Motivation That Works: How to Get Motivated and Stay Motivated

Harding wants to convince us, literally, that we do not have a head. It sounds preposterous but he is rather insistent and, incredibly, it starts to dawn on us that somehow he has a point. The phrase "I have no head" says something new not about the word "head" but about the word "I". Actually what Harding should have written is that "I am not a head": our experience of the world is something much more basic and elemental, and only later do we learn about our head. This becomes clearer when one finds that Harding also claims that we don't have a body. In fact, even after reading the book I shall continue to talk about my head as something I have - it sounds more natural.

I think that Harding is talking about one of the most intriguing philosophical problems of today, which is consciousness. He wants us to become aware of our awareness, and to show how this experience fundamentally changes the way we see everything else.

To my mind, his connection to Zen Buddhism is strenuous. He mentions many passages from Zen Buddhism (and also from some Christian mystics) to make his point. Zen Buddhism is about rational thought being an obstruction of truth, but thinking about awareness is a very rational enterprise. I am not convinced that when the Zen masters talked about the disappearance of the self they meant the same as headlessness. Anyway the connection with Zen adds little to the main idea of the book, which I think can very well stand on its own.

All in all, I think this book touches on something that is really very important, even fundamental. My only criticism is that the book contains much that I thought peripheral and even unnecessarily opaque.

Is the world you experience "inside" your mind or "outside" it?

Puzzle over that little question while you read this underground spiritual classic. Douglas Harding is dead serious (though far from solemn): he wants to show you that you have no head.

You see, he noticed one day while wandering in the Himalayas -- where this sort of thing is apt to happen -- that _he_ didn't have a head. And, in reflecting on the experience afterwards, he worked out a way to bring other people to the same awareness with no need for either abstruse scholarly appartus or esoteric meditation techniques.

All you have to do is turn around the arrow of attention, and try to look back to see who -- or Who -- is looking _out_ from wherever it is you're looking out from. Go ahead. Try it right now.

See?

Well, if you did, you don't technically need the book any more. But Harding is still a lot of fun to read: he has a light touch, a subtle sense of humor, and the ability to compress the keenest of insights into the simplest of prose, so you'll enjoy him even if you've already gotten his point.

And if you _haven't_ gotten it yet, he'll help you to do so. It's really the same point Alan Watts wanted to put across in _The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are_ (which, for my money, is his best work on the subject). Watts wants you to see that the world is your body; Harding wants you to see that the world is your mind; and they're both right.

This is just a charming book all around, and it will grow on you over the years without ever getting old. Buy a copy and keep it; when it wears out, buy another. Pass it out to your friends. Force it on your enemies (and thereby turn them into your friends). I've gone through at least a couple copies of it myself.

Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks spirituality isn't _supposed_ to be fun, and that anything this simple is somehow unworthy of God, you should probably stay away from it for a while. Read Raymond Smullyan's _The Tao Is Silent_ first and (chuckle) lighten up.

Is the world you experience "inside" your mind or "outside" it? Read Harding, and then _you_ tell _me_.

This is yet another wonderful book on enlightenment. It teaches us that when we truly look at who we are, there is really no "self". The "self" is a concept made up in our head and it can be whatever you identify your "self" to be. I recently came across a wonderful book on how this pertains to relationships and our own development. It is called "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" by Toru Sato. It is a spectacular book that helps us appreciate the process of our spirit unfolding throughout life. I'd highly recommend these books if you are interested in understanding your true "self".

An experience of organic change can enter one's presence upon inner recognition (resonance) while reading, since the "Miraculous" is now as it always has been, yet is explained here in concise language representing a living tradition. Not a psychology, a religion, or a science, the in-the-moment practice outlined in text and diagrams, reaches our depths if upon our approach we open our minds, hearts, and the sensation of being in the moment while reading. A book to live by and refer to with renewed attention indefinitely.

Having read just about everything written by or about Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Collin, Orage, Nicoll, and countless disciples, spin-offs, Sufis, etc., etc., and having been drawn by them into spending years in a Gurdjieff "school," and being familiar with the traditions on which the Gurdjieff approach was based, I take a lot of the "fourth way" material with a large grain of salt. The core of the "work" is a powerful methodology, but no more so than, say, vipassana, Zen, vajrayana or other solid, meditation-based tradition. There is nothing about the fourth way that is any more "esoteric" than these other traditions. The biggest difference is that Gurdjieff left behind a legacy of fraudulent teachers and cults, whereas there are many Buddhist and other groups that are reliable. Regardless, I strongly recommend In Search of the Miraculous. It's the single best book on Gurdjieff's work ever written. It's reasonably comprehensive on the important theories and methods. It's clear -- no Beelzebub's Talesian mumbo-jumbo. It includes enough of Ouspenky's personal comments and experiences to make an entertaining story, but it isn't a self-indulgent book about the author ("and then he said this to me, and then I said that to him.") I find Ouspensky's other works overly dry and intellectual, but this one is both fun and profound. (And if you happen to buy a copy that has a bookmark in it from a purported Gurdjieff "school" -- toss the bookmark.)

This is that once-in-a-lifetime book, the kind you'd like to find in that ancient, out-of-the-way used bookstore that you wish existed. Every chapter in this book, every page, unfolds a new enigma, and Ouspensky writes so well, like a master suspense novelist, that you find yourself drawn to read on no matter how unusual some of the teachings get. Indeed, some of the material in the book seems nonsensical--but if you're patient, the nonsense is immediately followed by a watershed of wisdom, wisdom of a kind I've never read before. Highly rewarding, rich with unique insight, I eagerly recommend this to any seeker of Truth who keeps an open mind.

Before I read this book, all I ever hear of Derrida is that he is so hard to read. Upon reading this, I realized where this could be true. This beginners book is very well written and made Derrida's work simple to understand. Although one may need a basic knowledge in linguistics and Sassure, one does not need it all together to comprehend some of Derrida's work. Author Jim Powell gives a concise look into the dense writings of the linguist which I not only found easy, but exciting - enough to make me want to go out and read some of the material that is written about. Along with an explanation of Derrida's work is also a brief biography which gives on an idea where he is coming from. Highly reccomended! One of the best beginners book to date.

Derrida is my favorite philosopher. I don't think that his 'Deconstruction' is holistic necessarily but the gist of it explains the inherent problems of doing philosophy better then anything else I've read.

Unlike the greats of Science who simplify complex ideas (i.e..Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman), the guru's of philosophy take fairly straight-forward ideas and shroud them with such mysterious sounding proprietary language that their work becomes nearly impossible to decipher. Derrida is no exception. This is a shame because his underlying message is brilliant...and really not not all that abstract.

So until philosophers realize that less words does not directly translate to less intelligence, we should be very glad to have commentators like Jim Powell around.

"Derrida For Beginners" concentrates on developing the key concept of "differance" and defining the necessary Derridian terminology used to communicate its meaning. The book clearly defines, "binary opposites", "texts", "logocentricism" etc.. and has plenty of diagram's to help you get the idea. While I can't say the artwork did much for me, the cartoon setting does force the message to be carried accross succinctly...no babling. The first book I read after failing miserably to tackle "Of Grammatology" was "Derrida" by Christopher Norris. While his was an excellent introduction..I will say that after I read "Derrida for Beginners" I went back and read most of Norris' book again and got a lot more out of it. Try this: read "Derrida for Beginners" as many times as needed until you have all the words in bold print at your fingertips..then, read Norris' book "Derrida". With this few hours of investment, do some online searches and read some of the commentaries and criticism of Derrida. You will be surprised at how badly he is misunderstood by so many who have studied him a lot more then you, and should feel good about your knowledge in comparisom. Of course you then need to get humble again so start reading "Of Grammatology". :)

If you are beginning to read derrida, this book will be very helpful. Now if they only made one for Judith Butler! (Skip the Foucault, his theories are not that complex.)

It's hard to give a cursory review of a book of aphorisms. This edition of 'The Gay Science' however comes with observations by the superlative Nietzschian commentator, Walter Kaufmann, who says that "this book is a microcosm in which we find almost all of Nietzsche: epigrams and songs, aphorisms and...philosophical problems, ethics and theory of knowledge, reflections on art and on the death of God, the eternal recurrence and even Zarathustra." This is about as good a review of 'The Gay Science' as any.

I must say that of the 4 other Nietzschian works I have read (BG&E, Geneology of Morals, BOT, and Antichrist) this is the best, most complete, and most enjoyable so far. This book showcases Nietzsche for what is probably his most noticable strength: his ability as a psychologist and sociologist. He seems to have a good understanding of the types of innate moves people possess and utilize in their respective environments. Probably his understanding of exatcly what that environment is, namely, his sense of objective reality, is what allows him to comment so precisely on human nature. True, he's an indefensibly offensive misogynist and war monger, and that notwhithstanding, many of his observations are still germane in this day and age, which suggests an accute sense of psychology and anthropology on his part; although naturally a bit dated. Of course, I believe that in modern America we tend to discount the utter sagacity of 19th century Europeans in their pragmatism. Perhaps Nietzsche just seems sagacious compared to the discourse of present day America. His comments on hegemony, or how the ruling class manipulates the masses into cooperation are great. Nietzsche's love of science and his comments on the silliness of self-proclaimed objective types is excellent too. The opening aphorism of Book Two, entited "To the Realists-" is a clarion mockery to those so enamoured with logic that they deny, zombie-like, their own humanity and necessary (if not intentional) delusion.

Previously I was confused by Nietzsche's style. After hearing some lectures by professor Bob Solomon I came to understand how utterly ironic Nietzsche is trying to be in his writing from the outset. The title of this book, the 'Gay' science is trying to tell us that. Only by not taking Nietzsche seriously, by understanding his intentional irony and sarcasm, can one begin to hear him seriously. For all this book's sturm und drang it is frivolous and insignificant; and what of life isn't? so be gay and carefree my friends (while keeping watch with a jaundiced eye)! hence the nascent, cheerful, crushing existentialism of Nietzsche. Life is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing, so let's go have a beer and catch some of the performance art of the wise, having ourselves a good laugh over their wardrobes and posturing. In this context, in his clever craftiness and irony, Nietzsche's message congeals to reveal the mind of, if not a mentally deranged person (who of us isn't after all), then a mind twisted into a sage of sorts who, motivated and feuled by an almost divine derangement, serves as a valuable alterego sibling. Nietzsche burns the midnight oil as a sibyl for our collective subconscious. This is the best work by Nietzsche I have read yet.

This book contains the famous description of the madman announcing the Death of God. Obviously Nietzsche sees himself as the madman, sacrificing himself to bring humanity the awful news. What's odd is that Nietzsche was certainly not the first person to proclaim God's death; in fact, as he himself notes elsewhere, many educated people had already become either agnostic or atheistic. None of them, however, found this as earthshaking as Nietzsche. The reason, I think, is that he had an essentially religious nature. The word "spiritual" recurs throught the book. In one remarkable passage he even chastises St. Augustine for being insufficiently spiritual.

The Gay Science is a pivitol book for Nietzsche because it is the first in which the tension between the spiritual seeker and the atheist becomes manifest. Gone is the skeptical pose of "Human All Too Human"; instead we have the anguish of a man torn between two conflicting ideals. The tension, while it ravaged Nietzsche, did produce some brilliant ideas and unforgettable prose, even if it did not ultimately lead to a liveable philosophy.

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

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

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

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

This book inspires heartfelt testimony. My own experience is that it liberates. Wittgenstein introduces a method that's fitted to the questions he treats, so that anyone who is bothered by the same questions can finally get a decent grip on them. The questions I mean are the usual philosophical ones: what is value? what is a fact? what is logic? what makes a thing what it is? what is essence? what is explanation? what is thinking? and so on. But (and this is a clue to his method) the basic question among all of these is about meaning: what is it, what conditions it, and what is the relationship between meaning and world (it turns out to be intimate).

A couple of "warnings": Wittgenstein is not a philosopher who likes jargon, in fact the tendency to jargon cuts directly against his philosophical point that language is just fine the way it is. But he can be weirdly hard to read anyway and very smart people walk away from him bewildered all the time. Mostly (I think) that's because the questions are uniquely "close to us" and Wittgenstein's approach is totally unlike familiar approaches to problem-solving (in science, math, politics, car mechanics, etc.) It's as though we are used to inspecting things at arm's length but what's at issue in these questions changes at arm's length, the problem is only right at our noses. So he takes another approach which you'll have to see first-hand - what he himself called his "new method". Now every rule must have an exception, and that brings me to the second point. Actually Wittgenstein does rely on some technical vocabulary - nothing far-out, but it can present an obstacle to deeper reading. Words like "sense", "reference", "assertion", "truth-value", "concept", and "object" stem from logic and the theory of meaning as Frege developed them. To go more deeply into PI, a person would have to read - or somehow be comfortable with ideas from - at least two of Frege's articles: "On Sense and Reference" and "On Concept and Object" [collected in The Frege Reader, Beaney ed.]. These articles are practically the fountainhead of analytic philosophy and also clear, precisely written, and intensely brilliant. More to the point, they contain many of Wittgenstein's insights in germinal form, and many of Wittgenstein's most significant moves are implicit or explicit criticisms of Frege. So to really get to the bottom of PI you'll probably need to read Frege.

Anyway, the bottom line is: if you've come this far, it's for you.

Philosophical Investigations is a classical work in the history of philosophy. It is a book which holds a position similar to that of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Plato's Meno and Heidegger's Sein und Zeit.

Let's take a look at Wittgenstein's investigations. I have presented Wittgenstein's life in my review of Ray Monk's Wittgenstein biography, let me here focus more on his philosophy.

Wittgenstein starts with a quote from St Augustine. Augustine belived that the principal function of language is to refer to external reality, he believed that all words function similar to names and according to Wittgenstein he seems to have held the view language is learned through ostensive defintions. Wittgenstein, however, rejects this referentialist view of language, believing that language is far more complex than what Augustine thought. Language is an activity, or connected to a number of activitites, which Wittgenstein called language-games. Language-games have different puprposes, not all of them are centered around refering. There are many contexts for using words and many kinds of speach acts. While the logical positivists believed that the meaning of a statement was its method of verification, and Frege believed in two different entities (Sinn and Bedeutung), Wittgenstein rejects these views. According to this thinker from Vienna, meaning is use, and to understand a linguistic expression is to master how to use it and the accompanying techniques, not mereley to understand the verification principle, grasping some Platonic/Fregian entity or have some sense impression in one's head (Locke).

Language is behaviour, practive give the words their sense according to Wittgenstein. This also relates to the private language argument, presented in paragraphs 199ff. Wittgenstein argues that the rules of language must be public and behavioral. It is not, as some like Peter Winch or Kripke have thought, an argument for the principle social nature of language, but for the behavioral aspect of rule-following. Mental terms, according to LW, cannot enter into the language without intimately being connected to overt behavioral patterns. Thus the mentalism of Hume and Locke is rejected, and Wittgenstein shows how knowledge must be more than just access to private sense data. There goes Russell, the British aristocratic sensualists and the Cartesian idea of priveleged access. Sometimes Wittgenstein may seem like a Marxist: it is the practical part of human life that provides that basis for our thoughts and rationality. Being a rational creature, according to Wittgenstein, is not what the rationalist Descartes thought or the empiricists thought; you cannot isolate the intellect or private sensations, because human rationality is based on practical and concrete, physical behavioral patterns.

Througout the investigations Wittgenstein tries to challenge many of the positions held by previous philosophers. He once said that he didn't write for philosophers, but I do think that knowledge of the history of philosophy sheds light over his investigations. he said that WHAT he said would be simple, but understanding WHY he said it, would be difficult.

But even though you are not a professional philosopher, you may receive vital inputs from Wittgenstein. If you can grasp the essence of his ideas of language-games, rule-following, form of life, anti-mentalism and conceptual therapy, you will have knowledge of some of his key ideas ideas.

If you supply your reading of Philosophical Investigations with Ray Monk's marvellous "Ludwig Wittgenstein. The Duty of Genius" you can understand the horizon of this great thinker. Also important, are Baker and Hacker's books on Wittgenstein.

Finally, a word on interpretation. Burton Dreben once had a seminar at the University of Oslo, where he said that if you don't know Frege and Russell, you won't understand Wittgenstein. I completely agree with Dreben that Wittgenstein was much inspired by the philosophers and logicians Frege and Russell. However, one should understand that Wittgenstein was deeply fascinated by poetry, religion and existential questions. Among his favourite writers were Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Kierkegaard. When this is taken into account, one can understand Wittgenstein in depth. Wittgenstein was a thinker with great analytical abilities, but never forget that he had a poetic soul. "I am not a religious man, but I cannot help seeing everything from a religious point of view" he once said to one of his friends. The ideas he had on language-games, forms of life and rule-following should be seen in light of some of the profound and important questions a religious man or an existentialist may ask himself.

A useful way of understanding the later Wittgenstein is to take him as a rhetorician. That is, by taking him as saying that understanding in general is analogous to going up to someone and having a conversation, one may grasp that understanding involves a triangulation between the speaker, the audience, and the world, which last is comprised of these conversations or language games.

As the meaning of the speaker's utterance is inseparable from how the audience takes this utterance, so the world is inseparable from utterances in general, for utterances are the very effects the world has caused.
So,I hear you speak in the way that I do because I have expectations about what you're going to say. Indeed, because I can test my expectations of what I think you're going to say against the actual outcome of what you did say, the concept of "mistake" thereby becomes meaningful. Whenever the concept of "mistake" is meaningful in this manner, I escape a would-be private world wherein other minds are merely the projection of my own ego.
I'm adjusting my expectations of what's coming next even as you speak. Moreover, you have expectations about how I'm going to take what you say. However, if you hear me respond in a way that surprises you, you may want to make an adjustment in the way that you're speaking to me so that you modify my expectations. Perhaps then I'll better know what to expect next. You, after all, expect me to hear you in the way you intend, and when my response indicates otherwise (by surprising you),you'll want to make sure that I understand how you wish me to proceed. In this way, we create,a posteriori, a means of understanding rather than depend on some reservoir of meaning that exists beforehand, in a priori relation to our utterances.
The better I understand either you or the world, the further I should be able to proceed without great surprises. A surprise on my part,however, indicates that perhaps I should reconsider something that I thought I had grasped earlier. In light of the unexpected, my earlier response may prove less useful now--on its basis, I did not anticipate this.
No response is ever truly wrong, though, for each was at least useful at some point along the way, and, taken together, each makes up the object of our ongoing discourse. However, those reponses that prove most useful are those that, by minimizing surprises, let me know how to go on.

This book has touched my soul with philosophical insights that normally take years, if not decades, to acquire through reading opaque academic works. The genius of Senor Eco in 'Kant and the Platypus' has allowed me to expand my ken on the vast fields of philosophy of language and cognition.

What is the boundary between cognition and mere philosophy of language? What is the role of language in cognition? What is the platypus' place in a mammalian dominated world? These are just a few of the probing questions that Umberto Eco asks and brillantly answers in Kant and the Platypus. There should be no cognition issues involved in the purchase of this book: it simply is a must-own.

This is a layman's introduction to semiotics. These essays make me feel as if I were watching a TV show (probably the Roseanne show) on semiotics. Where is the intellectual substance I ask? When have semioticians given up the pursuit of semiotic research merely to be branded as "semioticians for the masses"?

The main improvements, as far as I can tell, that Cooper has made, in comparison to Hamilton & Cairns' popular collection, are in not using any translations by Cornford or Jowett and in "completing" the "Platonic" corpus, i.e. by including Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Cleitophon, Hipparchus, Minos, Lovers, and Theages. But I don't know how much readers of the Hamilton & Cairns collection missed any of these (or even whether they *should* have missed any of them), except Alcibiades I and *perhaps* the Cleitophon, since (except for these two) they are mostly agreed to be spurious.

Two other good points of Cooper's text are his Introduction (which is refreshingly unbiased with respect, e.g., to the question of the chronology of the dialogues) and the Index.

On to some criticisms:

The translations are not particularly good, except Rowe's rendition of the Statesman (though I think Seth Benardete's was better). I should say, though, that it is a great relief finally to see the end of the reign of Jowett's and Cornford's awful and inaccurate translations, many of which were included in Hamilton & Cairns' collection. (When I say "good", I mean mostly *literal*.) But it doesn't help that there has been little or no effort put into getting the various translators to agree on how to translate of important Greek terms, or even into getting a single translator to translate important terms consistently: Cooper explains, "...No general effort has been made to ensure consistency in the translation of recurrent words or phrases across the vast extent of Plato's works (that would intrude too greatly on the prerogatives and the individual judgment of the translators to whose scholarly expertise we are indebted for these _Complete Works_)..." (xxviii). And there are *many* translators; with a few exceptions (notably Grube's translation of Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Meno, Phaedo, Republic), there is practically a different translator or pair of translators for each dialogue. Also, aside from new translations of the spurious works, most translations of the genuine Platonic works in Cooper's text have been previously published, mostly by Hackett. The only new translations of (probably) genuine Platonic works are those of the Alcibiades I, Cratylus, Epinomis, Hippias Minor, Menexenus, Critias, Timaeus. And "new", of course, doesn't necessarily (or even usually) mean *better*.

Cooper makes a very telling comment about his expectations of translation: "When we English-speaking readers turn to Plato's texts, we want to find a Plato who speaks in English--our English..." (xxvi). This is easy to grant in one sense: we of course want an *English* translation. But Cooper's comment seems to suggest that we readers want Plato to SPEAK LIKE WE DO. I don't know that this is something that we *should* expect. After all, Plato spoke and thought in a language that is very different from our language, and almost 2 dozen centuries separates us from the man himself and the ideas he expresses: we cannot expect him to talk or think like us, and if we try to make him do so then we will likely turn Plato's words into bland expressions of things we already know are true or things we already know are false. We should expect much more from one of the greatest minds of all time.

Cooper has preserved the Thrasyllan arrangement of the dialogues. I can't think of any good reason why he did so, other than for the sake of preserving tradition (see his pp. x-xi). That arrangement does not agree with most modern views on the actual order in which the dialogues where written. I can appreciate why Cooper didn't try to arrange them in accordance with any modern view. But as a student, I find the Thrasyllan order continually frustrating: I just can't get accustomed to the arrangement (the farthest I've come is to understand that the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are somewhere in the beginning of the book); I find myself regularly having to consult the table of contents to find the dialogue I'm looking for. For easier reference I would much rather have the dialogues simply arranged alphabetically (keeping the "Letters" and the clearly spurious works in the back).

Lastly, the physical book itself (particularly the binding) is not very durable. The pages are very thin, as I'm sure they must be to keep the volume to a manageable size, a little over 2.25 inches thick. But the binding on mine came unglued not too long after I started using it.

I guess it's good in some sense--convenient--to have the entire "Platonic corpus" all in one volume. But in many cases, I have found myself still using (and buying) translations that are superior to the ones Cooper has included in this collection. But for those who want most or all of Plato's works without having to buy many separate volumes, this is the best one-volume collection available.

John M. Cooper's "Comlete Works of Plato" is the best single volume anthology of Plato around. Shrouded within the eighteen hundred pages of this book lie many treasures of abundant proportions.

This edition for the first time exposes these new translations: Cratylus, Alcibiades, Second Alcibiades, Hipparchus, Rival Lovers, Theages, Lesser Hippias, Menexemus, Clitiphon, Timaeus, Critias, Minos, Epinomis, Definitions, On Justice, On Virtue, Demodocus, Sisyphus, Halcyon, and Eryxias.

Also the introduction makes accessible techniques while reading Plato to give a more profound sense of the dialouges in order to distinguish Plato's ideas as a whole. Another point of interest is the section on definitions, which is a dictionary of 185 important philosophical terms that developed throughout the Socratic era. I am very happy to have purchased this volume and I hope you find the same joy in buying it for yourself.

In ancient times, Plato was regarded as one who writes most beautifully, and even in translation his mastery comes forward.

Reading this book, you are at the beginning of philosophy. There are beautiful dialogs concerning the most profound questions anyone can ask.

An advantage of this particular book is that for a reasonable price you can own Plato's complete works in modern scholarly translations. The volume is skillfully edited and there are handy notes.

Plato is one of the few philosophers who can be read for pleasure. His influence on Western thought is immense. As Whitehead says, subsequent Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato.

Here are some of the works collected in this volume -

Apology - Socrates defense of his life

Phaedo - a defense of the immortality of the soul

Euthyrpo - a criticism of the Divine Command theory of ethics

Republic - the ideal commonwealth, what is justice, theory of ideas

Meno - the recollection theory of knowledge

Timaeus - Plato's story of the creation of the universe, his cosmology

Before there was the O.J. Simpson double homicide trial there was the Eichmann trial. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil provides insight into one of the most publicized "show trials" ever. After the Nuremberg trial hundreds of Nazis were still in hiding or had taken assumed identities outside of Europe. Adolph Eichmann was one of these individuals. The Israeli Mossad kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel to stand trial for "crimes against humanity" for his role in the Holocaust. Eichmann was abducted in Argentina where he was struggling with his anonymity. Eichmann hated losing his identity as a powerful Nazi. After being kidnapped, but before being flown to Israel Eichmann was asked to consent to being brought up on charges against humanity, which he did. Eichmann may have had a difficult time living without his former social standing and identity.

Arendt's book is a landmark in the workings of the Nazi machine that tortured, raped, and killed over 11 million Europeans for their religion, sexual orientation, political ideas, and nationality. However, the Eichmann trial centers more on the role Eichmann had in the "Final Solution" to the Jewish Question. Eichmann was charged with being a key player in the destruction and eradication of European Jewry.

The book and Arendt's theory regarding "the banality of evil" has created controversy since its inception in 1963. In 1963 Arendt was sent to Jerusalem to follow the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker. She published a series of articles over the course of the trial. It is often remarked by critics of the book that Arendt was not present for even half of the trial, yet the book is considered one of the principal books on the trial, if not the primary.

Arendt's basic theory is that Eichmann was a moral eunuch. He was a cog, in a large killing machine that never contemplated his role or developed a conscious to answer questions for himself. He simply followed orders and happened to have an instrumental job in the destruction of world Jewry. Arendt argues that even if Eichmann had not had the job there were hundreds of other German Nazis that would have fulfilled the obligations of his job without a conscience. Throughout the book Arendt patronizes Eichmann as a man incapable of his own thoughts; so prone to using clichés inappropriately, repeating himself, contradicting his previous statements, and utterly incompetent of original thought or judgment. Arendt portrays Eichmann as an automaton only interested in advancing his own career. Arendt does not even fault Eichmann for completing his job, because she thought he was simply following the orders that were given to him.

This was one of the three major controversies that arose with the printing of Arendt's insight on the trial. Arendt also heavily criticized David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minster of Israel, the chief Prosecutor Gideon Hausner, and the European Jewish community.

Arendt believed that the Jewish Community in Europe had meticulous organizational abilities and was instrumental in the destruction of European Jewry. The organizations that the Jews created were able to document and provide comprehensive statistics and efficiency in rounding up Jews and aiding the Nazis. Arendt believed the Jewish bureaucracy was impeccable in its carrying out of these duties. This argument of Arendt's is flawed for a number of reasons. If the Jewish communal leaders assigned these tasks did not fulfill them then other Jews may have, and if not them, then other European citizens might have, which does not completely discredit Arendt. But the fact that does debunk Arendt's theory, that is often described as "blaming the victims not the criminals," is the fact that the Russian Jews were systematically murdered and killed much the same way as much of Central and Eastern Europe's Jews were. What stands to reason is there were no Jewish organizations to augment the efficiency of the Nazis in Russia. The Nazis were able to comprehend this task without the help of any Jewish bureaucracy. The Jewish organizations could not have been much more helpful to the Jews of Europe, Arendt really overplays this theory. Jews were not leading their brethren to their funerals, or simply following orders like Eichmann and other cogs, but were probably trying to alleviate Jewish suffering.

Arendt's criticism of Ben-Gurion's treatment of the trial is precise. There were journalists from all over the world hanging on each and every word of the trial; it was truly a "show trial." Even though Arendt would probably agree that Eichmann was a cog and an automaton, Israel's Premier was able to gain great publicity for the trial.

Throughout the course of the book Arendt restates the arguments made against Eichmann by the prosecution, when they are adequate she leaves them as is. However, when the arguments fall short of Arendt's standards she takes the liberty of showing the flaw of the procedure, the argument, and its role in the trial. At most points this commentary is a necessity, but at others Arendt seems to be showing her mental muscle and belittling the prosecution.

These are the major reasons Arendt's work was poorly received in Israel. Her criticism of European Jewry's role in the Holocaust is rather short-sighted, but her indictment of the prosecutors and Ben-Gurion is profound.

Eichmann in Jerusalem is a classic in the study of human nature, totalitarian politics, and political theory, deservingly. The book has its flaws, but the insightful commentary on one's man adventure inside the totalitarian Nazi destructing machine is a true tour de force.

A lot has been written and said about the Holocaust. This small book by a respected philosopher about the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem is the largest and most thought provoking of them all. Why? Because it analizes through the personal experience of an "employee" of the killing machine, the intimate aspect of evil, how banally can it stem out of the most ordinary persons. Rosseau wrote that "homo homini lupus" and Arendt clearly follows up. It also provides factual historical insight about how the Nazi solution to the jewish problem evolved from expatriation or relocation to physical annihilation. From another perspective, that of the victims, answers the question that many other authors ignore or circumvent. How so few (in the R.S.H.A. and S.S.) could find, control and deport so many ? In almost all the countries the hearding of the victims and their shipment could not have happened without the active participation of the Jewish Councils and other jewish authorities which were empowered by the Nazis for that purpose. The self delusion of the leaders of the jewish communities is clearly recorded by Arendt up to the appalling and pathetic case of Dr. Kastner in Hungary who saved 1,684 people at a cost of 476,000 victims. From a juridical standpoint, Arendt valiantly raises certain doubts about the fairness of the trial. It also analizes the political impact of Eichmann's veredict and its influence upon future trials (in Germany) of Nazi war criminals. THIS CONTROVERSIAL BOOK IS A MUST FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE TRAGEDY OF THE HUMAN CONDITION,THE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED TO EICHMANN'S ABDUCTION AND TRIAL AND THE REAL WORKINGS OF THE HOLOCAUST.

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt is one of the most disturbing books that I have read in a long while. Along with Gita Sereny's interviews with Stangle and Speer, they demonstrate the true horror of the Third Reich. This horror is not the inherent evil of Hitler or Himmler or the sadistic camp guards. The holocaust presented these already morally bankrupt men with the opportunity to commit the evil which their consciences allowed. Of greater horror are the individuals, such as Eichmann, who were not evil per se, but who were willing to put conscience aside in order to advance within an evil system.

As Arendt moves through the holocaust in the different countries in Western Europe and the Balkans, it becomes evident that the difference in degrees of the destruction of Jewry was not defined by the presence of potentially evil wrongdoers, but by the existence of individuals who would not put their conscience aside in order to further short-term goals. The contrast between the destruction of German Jews and the survival of the Jews of Bulgaria and Denmark can be directly traced to a commitment by the Bulgarians and Danes to save their fellow countrymen. The German Jews did not survive as the Danish and Bulgarian Jews did because Germany lacked such men of conscience.

It is easier to think of the chief architects and perpetrators of the attempted destruction of a whole people as madmen, the madder the better. Their acts can be rightfully condemned, but also understood, as evil things done by evil people. Furthermore, if the holocaust can be blamed on the acts of evil madmen, then it is also easier to believe that it could not have been prevented. Arendt destroys each of these rationalizations and raises questions that frankly kept me up at night. If, as she demonstrates, the success of the holocaust was determined by those who put their consciences aside, then it also seems agonizingly true that the deaths of six million were not predetermined. Had more people acted on their consciences, perhaps those deaths need not have been integral to the Nazi conquest of Europe.

The fact that she does not treat Eichmann as a mad sadist, and instead explains why the prosecutions portrayal of him was incorrect, does not mean that Arendt is an apologist for Eichmann - far from it. Unlike Hitler, Eichmann was under no illusion that the Jews were responsible for all of the world's problems. His prior relations with Jews had been friendly. However, he was willing able to put this aside and play a vital role in the Final Solution. His excuse was that he was ordered to do so. But the reality was that he was more worried about his failure to get the promotions that he believed he deserved. This made Eichmann, like most of the perpetrators of the holocaust, the paradigm of the "banality of evil." However, such a rational led Arendt not to condemn the Jerusalem Court's death verdict but to condone it.

Arendt does an amazing job of delving into the mind of Eichmann as well as the reasons why the Final Solution was successful in some countries and not others. This is not a book for one who desires light reading. However, if one is seeking to understand the Final Solution, then this book is a must.

Suffering imprisonment, fear, torture, and anger for feeling unjustly punished, Boethius seeks intellectual consolation. The result is a work of profound depth, which became the most popular secular reading during the Middle Ages with long lasting effects. It is truly rational in its approach, following the classical Neo-Platonic style, and although it does not rely on any Christian doctrine the inner core of Boethius's argument requires faith. The dialogue between the two characters (the author and Philosophy) follows a classical model, alternating with monologues and poems (Menippean satire).
Boethius questions the existence of evil, of impunity, and suffering of the innocent (a reminder of Job). Assisted and guided by a woamn who personifies Philosophy, Boethius discourse and rational dialogue will reach the conclusion that there is no merit in worldly riches and fame, the highest good governs the universe, and wisdom is eternal. Suffering serves a purpose when it draws the individual back on the true path. Worldly existence has two realities: human and divine (Providence). But if there is Providence, if God has already drawn the path for every individual's life, where does free will stand? For Boethius God knows the future, but humans have the desire for good implanted in their nature and it is upon everyone's will not to be lead astray through spiritual ailment. Freedom exists to the extent you are able to recognize God's fate! Happiness and the seed of truth lies within, good fortune deceives, bad fortune enlightens! The "Wheel of Fortunes" cannot take away from you that which you possess within yourself.

Boethius philosophical reasoning might not be entirely satisfactory, or somehow passive, and that being the case Boethius reminds us (by means of Philosophy) that "it is not allowed to man to comprehend in thought all the ways of the divine work." Something else besides reason is required... and that could be faith!

In real life, Boethius was executed by order of Theoderic the Ostrogoth, an authoritarian monarch. "The Consolation of Philosophy" might have brought the author the strength, peace, happiness and the "consolation" he so much needed in his life's trial... but in the end the "Wheel of Fortunes" took its turn.

Most people don't expect medieval literature to be easy to read, let alone relevant,immediate, and moving. Yet the Consolation is all that and more. As other reviewers here point out, Boethius wrote it under great personal duress. After rising to a high position and enjoying a distinguished career, Boethius is awaiting execution and the Consolation details his gradual movement from despair, grief and anger at the hand he has been played by fortune to a remembrance of his "true nature" and that of the universe...aided at every step by Lady Philosophy. Although the arguments are often familiar to anyone versed in ancient philosophy, and the structure rhetorical, the terrible context and the passion behind the arguments make this about as immediate and real as it gets. PS The medievals thought so too...it is just about the most quoted and imitated book of the period...

For a long time, this would stand as the last major work in which philosophy played the role it was accustomed to play in Antiquity; most medieval thinkers would make philosophy the servant of theology and strip it of its profoundly ethical roots - after all, Christianity became the philosophical way of life par excellence. By using philosophy as a character, Boethius emphasizes its vital role in everyday life and the choices that life entails. Although Boethius is usually mentioned in conjunction with Aristotelian and Christian thought, this work is especially linked to Platonism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism: a) it follows the progression of Socratic discourse in a journey that leads one from the suppression of false beliefs towards a gradually clearer approximation of what Good is, and Philosophy is akin to the priestess Diotima of Plato's Symposium; b) the harrowing context in which it was written mirrors the composition of Seneca's Letters to Lucilius; c) its frequent allegorical use of poetry and myths follows the path set forth by the Stoics and Neoplatonists. The first few books free Philosophy's interlocutor from his errors, and Boethius then explores the work's central subjects: justice, the nature of good and evil, providence (themes that also intensely preoccupied Plotinus late in his life). Treating 'Consolation...' only as a compendium of ancient Greek philosophy would be doing it a major disservice, as it would underscore the personal dimension lying at the very heart of the work. Those who forgot that philosophy is a lot more than the mere juggling of concepts should definitely read this key book.