5 comments about The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

1. _The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche_, first published in 1908, by Baltimore newspaperman H. L. Mencken was the first complete exposition of Nietzsche's thought written in English and presents a version of Nietzsche that may be unfamiliar to his latter-day interpreters. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) was an iconoclastic newspaperman who made a name for himself through his brash style and opposition to F.D.R. Mencken, whose ancestry was German and thus was heavily influenced by Germanic thinkers, wrote this book when he was twenty-seven years old to present the thinker of Nietzsche to the American people. This book presents Nietzsche as an elitist and atheistic philosopher who foretold the destruction of Christianity (which has yet to occur) and advocated a Social Darwinist philosophy. Mencken's political thinking may be understood as largely libertarian, though it included a racialist element to it, and thus this book contains much of the all-too-typical commentary against altruism common to the Social Darwinists of the time. Latter-day interpreters of Nietzsche have attempted to soften his image; however, as this book effectively shows, Nietzsche was a staunch advocate of eugenic breeding policies and Social Darwinism. I strongly disagree with the contents of this book, but nevertheless I find it a useful exposition of an alternative Nietzsche which our modern day academics seem afraid to face. Politically and philosophically there is much to disagree with about Mencken but he is always fun to read.
   
   
   
   The first section of this book is devoted to Nietzsche the man. Mencken begins by tracing Nietzsche's boyhood and youth. Nietzsche was the son of a preacher and from an early age had a strong fear of the Lord. Mencken explains Nietzsche's relationship with his father and sister (who eventually became the executor of his estate) as well as his early interest in literary matters. Mencken goes on to explain Nietzsche's progress in school and his developing cynicism and loss of faith. Following this, Mencken turns to Nietzsche's early development as a philosopher. In particular, Nietzsche's youthful reading of Arthur Schopenhauer framed his experience and led to his pessimistic understanding of the world. Nietzsche decried Christianity as a weakening doctrine and developed his notion of the superman. Mencken explains how Nietzsche's sickly constitution contrasted so starkly with his philosophy. Later in life, Nietzsche was to develop an illness which rendered him helpless and thus was left to his sister's care. The exact nature of this illness (and as to whether or not it was syphilis - it probably was not) has been debated much since.
   
   
   
   The second section of this book is devoted to Nietzsche the philosopher. Here, Mencken explains the Nietzschean contrast between Dionysus and Apollo in his early philological work. This contrast was to play a further development throughout Nietzsche's philosophical life. Following this, Mencken turns to the Nietzschean conception of the origin of morality. Nietzsche viewed Christian morality as a means of "slave revolt" and as a weakening doctrine which destroyed the will to live. Nietzsche maintains that morality is man-made and that the masters have a right to create their own morality. Following this, Mencken turns his attention to Nietzsche's comments that it is possible to move beyond good and evil. Here, Mencken maintains that Christianity developed as a conspiracy of the Jews, a slave people against the masters. Mencken further maintains that Nietzsche is fundamentally an immoralist. Following this, Mencken turns his attention to the Nietzschean conception of the superman. Here, Mencken and Nietzsche emphasize individualism and an opposition to charity and altruism as only serving to further weaken the race. Nietzsche also feared the notion of the eternal recurrence, which played some role in his later philosophy. Regarding Christianity, Nietzsche has very harsh words believing it to be an utterly corrupting influence. Mencken also mentions such notable evolutionists and Social Darwinians as Haeckel, Darwin, T. H. Huxley, and Herbert Spencer in this respect. Nietzsche regarded Christianity as essential a Jewish plot against the masters. Regarding truth, Nietzsche opposed the platitudes of the metaphysicians, the theologians, and politicians as Mencken says. Mencken finds the direction in which civilization is moving towards "universal brotherhood" to be rooted in the Christian conspiracy and thus to be anathema as well. Nietzsche firmly believed in the caste system and the aristocracy and thus opposed all forms of democratic leveling and socialism. Regarding women and marriage, Nietzsche's views were somewhat shaped by Schopenhauer's views on women. Nietzsche remained a lifelong bachelor and opponent of marriage. Regarding government, Mencken presents Nietzsche as a libertarian anarchist. Mencken writes, "Like Spencer before him, Nietzsche believed, as we have seen, that the best possible system of government was that which least interfered with the desires and enterprises of the efficient and intelligent individual." Nietzsche condemned both the monarchical ideal and the democratic ideal. Mencken also shows Nietzsche to be an elitist and Social Darwinist who despised altruism as a weakening doctrine. Regarding crime and punishment, Mencken argues that Nietzsche maintains that from torture arose self-torture and from this the idea of Christian sin. Regarding education, Mencken maintains that the ideal of education is to impart culture. Mencken ends with a section of "sundry ideas" of Nietzsche emphasizing his thinking on various topics. Following this, he details the rather complicated relationship between Nietzsche and Richard Wagner.
   
   
   
   The third section of this book attempts to examine Nietzsche as prophet. Mencken delves into Nietzsche's origins showing his philosophical development. Mencken also considers Nietzsche and his critics, both pro and con and ends with an outline for how to study Nietzsche mentioning various sources.
   
   
   
   Mencken's presentation of Nietzsche is certainly far from the modern day sanitized version we are given from academics. As such, I think this book is a useful account of the philosopher. I certainly do not agree with much of what Nietzsche or Mencken have to say, for example regarding altruism and Christianity, and believe that similar ideas were largely responsible for the rise of the Nazi tyranny. Nevertheless, this book gives a useful accounting of the Social Darwinist Nietzsche.
   
   
   
   For an appropriate response to the excesses of Social Darwinism, please consider the book _Darwinian Fairytales_ by the late Australian philosopher David Stove.



2. "There are some areas where Nietzsche's thoughts went a little fantastic. One theory he propounded was that Christianity was created by the Jews to make the rest of the ancient world a 'slave morality'."
   
   This comment is plainly misguided. Nietzsche was not given to simple constructs such as the one laid out here, in which a previous reviewer suggests that "the Jews" (presumably the entire race) conspired together to create in Christianity a slave morality that would conquer the ancient world. This implies, among other things, that the Jews were solely responsible for Christianity, that they created it intentionally, and that they wanted or necessarily had to build another religion to accomplish the feat of a slave morality. Nietzsche, in fact, emphatically attributes slave morality also to Judaism _in and of itself_. He considers Judaism the origin and execution of slave morality par excellence. _On the Genealogy of Morals_ is particularly useful on this subject.
   
   If such an analysis is present in Mencken (I submit that I haven't read the volume under consideration completely through), consider his Nietzsche the more impoverished for it.



3. The first thing that needs to be said about this book is that, as an exposition of Nietzsche's philosophy, it's profoundly flawed. Of course it doesn't claim to be exhaustively comprehensive, and today most of its readers will be drawn as much to the author and his interpretation as to the subject itself. But here the interpretation effectively buries the subject. In his own lifetime Nietzsche observed that in most cases "whoever thought he had understood something of me had made up something out of me after his own image (Ecce Homo III I)," and such is the case of Mencken.
   
   Symptomatic of this is Mencken's tendency to blithely dismiss (as "sheer lunacy", p.85, or "absurd", p.154) whatever in Nietzsche he fails to properly understand or finds to be at odds with his own reading. But the main problem is not so much in this, nor in his omissions, nor in his over-simplifications, nor even in his errors as such; as the introduction quite rightly notes, Mencken is "dead wrong" in equating Nietzsche's will to power with Schopenhauer's will to existence. The real problem is that, in so thoroughly misunderstanding this & other such key aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, Mencken inevitably, and substantially, misunderstands that philosophy as a whole.
   
   In this particular case, whereas a -higher- and -fuller- existence is seen by Nietzsche as the aim of the will to power, and hence the greatest good, Mencken's misinterpretation takes existence in itself to be the goal (eg, pp.81-83) and thereby interprets the overman as the man most fit to survive the Darwinian struggle for existence (pp.67, 79, etc.). In fact, Nietzsche repeatedly insisted that it is the mediocre who are most successful as far as mere survival goes ("the last man lives longest" Zarathustra Prologue 5; "species do -not- grow in perfection; the weak prevail over the strong again & again" Twilight of Idols IX 14), and by contrast frequently laments the fragility of the higher man ("the ruination of the higher man, of souls of a stranger type, is the rule" Beyond Good and Evil 269, see also 276 & 62, inter alia).
   
   Another example, the more lamentable for the sheer intellectual laziness it represents on Mencken's part, is his chapter on "Truth". Now, Nietzsche's critiques of objectivity and of the limits of conscious reason, as notably in BGE & TOI, are among the most brilliant and influential things he ever wrote. Yet Mencken wastes half the chapter in a pedantic general discussion of truth, then finally turns to Nietzsche by announcing his views are too complicated to be summarized in the available space, proceeds to misrepresent them, and concludes with the patently false assertion that Nietzsche was a moral ("atheistic") determinist.
   
   More unfortunate still, and far less forgiveable coming after the century of further Nietzsche scholarship which has been undertaken since Mencken first wrote, is that this book's introduction, which is supposed to be there to catch Mencken's errors, cheers him on in this one, as well as as in others. Let it be noted too, in passing, how absurd it it when the author of this introduction complains about the lack of clarity in Nietzsche's style--nevermind the countless passages (the Gay Science 381 is especially instructive, but see also Zarathustra, BGE, EH...) in which Nietzsche addresses the issue of style, connecting it with his conception of the order of rank. In other words, his style is a reflection of his philosophy and can't be criticized in isolation from it, any more than one can speak of Plato's use of dialectic as a mere question of style.
   
   As a final point, this particular edition of Mencken's work is further unsatisfactory in its sloppy editing and in its lack of corrections for those facts Mencken gives about Nietzsche's life which are objectively wrong (generally he was as accurate as possible for his time, but since them far more material has come to light--about Nietzsche's relationship with Lou Salomé, for example, not to mention that awful sister of his, who in Mencken's time was still posing as the--largely unquestioned--voice of authority in all things concerning her brother).
   
   To be fair one might find this book worthwhile for a number of reasons; as an example of how Nietzsche was often understood when his influence was first making itself felt; as one of the earliest works of an exceptional man in his own right; and there are even parts which do serve their intended purpose quite well (I think Nietzsche would have entirely approved of the chapter on Education). Finally I myself found Mencken useful here as a sort of intellectual sparring partner; having read a good deal of Nietzsche, I wanted to sort out my own thoughts by putting them up against those of another intelligent but non-specialist reader. So the book does have its uses, just not the one it claims to.



4. As an example of H.L. Mencken's nascency as a serious writer and critic, this biography of the philosopher Nietzsche is invaluable to anyone interested in the writings of either man. The introduction by the editor is insightfully critical but does fail to emphasize the context in which Mencken himself held certain views controversial by today's accepted standards. Mencken's interpretations of Nietzsche's ideas tend toward social Darwinism. Especially where he is writing about the early life of Nietzsche, Mencken's outline is better than any other book in English on the subject. But Mencken mixes and matches concepts arising from Dionysus and Apollo too loosely, sometimes to the point of miscomprehension of Nietzsche's position, and sometimes by using their Roman name equivalents. All in all, Mencken is thorough, conscientious and clear in his expose on the great German philosopher.



5. _Friedrich Nietzsche_ by noted early 20th century American journalist H. L. Mencken is a both a brief biography of Nietzsche as well as a basic outline of his philosophy. Nietzshe's biggest influence is easlily recognized as his predescessor in German pessimism, Schopenhauer, along with the ancient Greeks before Socrates. Nietzsche is criticized as being only a destructive force in his philosophy, merely tearing down the decadent Christian morality that reigned in the West during the 1800s. However, Nietzsche's ultimate goal was the "superman," men who were above morality, sentimentality, religion and the "mindless grazing herd of cows" that constituted most of humanity. Much of this book attacks Christianity, which Nietzsche abbhorred above all other things, and considered it a "slave-morality" derived from the Jews as opposed to the "master-morality" of the European aristocrats. The origin of morality, according to Nietzsche and derived from Schopenhauer, comes from a race's will to live, and this manifests itself in a the law codes, usually of divine origin, of any given tribe, ethnicity, social group, civilization, race or nation. Nietzsche differed from Schopenhauer in that he felt that a heroic life was the best life to lead, instead of giving up the will to live as Schopenhauer taught. Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer rejected trying to live a "happy" life, realizing that true happiness is unnatainable. In some respects, Nietzsche is reminiscent of the religious prophets he hated so much--he does not believe in free will, that people are more or less determined in their ways by forces that are beyond individual control, but he still exhorts them to dust themselves off and better themselves anyway. As far as his views of marraige and women are concerned, they are very pessimistic yet grounded in reality. "Love" comes from physical desire, and marriage is the official sanctioning of it. The ultimate purpose of marraige should be to breed a better race of humans to attain the "superman" in the future. There are some areas where Nietzsche's thoughts went a little fantastic. One theory he propounded was that Christianity was created by the Jews to make the rest of the ancient world a "slave morality". This is ridiculous, as Mencken notes, however some Jewish scholars today like to credit their own people with Christianity's rise at the same time voicing their disgust towards Christianity itself. But Nietzsche predicted that in the future Jews would be the ones that would virtually rule the world and have the greatest amount of influence in the intellectual fields. Another of Nietzsche's offbeat ideas is the doctrine of "eternal reccurance," that time repeats itself in cycles from eternity to eternity and gives the heroic "superman" the same struggle (in which the superman glories in) forever. As far as Nietzsche's influece goes today in 21st century America: I would only conclude that it is partial. It is readily apparent from reading Menckens exgesis where Nietzsche influenced Nazism, libertarians, nihilists, right-wing anarchists, "Ayn Rand style" objectivism and Satanism. Nothing exists for racial improvement, eugenics or euthanasia that is propelling humanity upward. The racial policies and ideals in ascendancy today are extremely dysgenic instead. Some of Nietzsche's ideas which are more readily observabable are the rule by an elite that is above the law--an "Illuminati" of sorts--but it is not bringing the human race upward--it is sending it crashing down to hell. I do not personally agree with many of Nietzsche's ideas, especially his attack on Christianity, but this is a thought provoking book of the "mad prophet of Nihilism."

2 comments about The Philosopher and His Poor.

1. Jacques Ranciere is one of the most important French philosophers writing today. This work deftly shows how sociologists have, over the years, taken control of Marxist thought away from the philosophers who once had (perhaps) too firm of a grip. Did the philosophers do this willingly? Should theorizing the poor go back into the hands of the philosophers? Do sociologists do a better job writing from the proletarian's perspective? You'll have to read the book to find out!



2. The belated arrival of this early book of Jacques Rancière in English is very welcome. Andrew Parker's Introduction, which tells the convoluted story of the book's prior aborted translation, is worth reading by itself. And Parker goes beyond this story to provide not only the most thorough bibliography on Rancière that an English reader will ever have seen, but a compelling explanation of the philosopher's place in relation to his, and our, contemporaries (Althusser, Balibar, Bourdieu), and of his importance. And the book itself is fascinating stuff: a journey through the philosophical tradition tracking the contempt-laden figure of the working man. Rancière finds his favorite example, the shoemaker, in so many texts from so many centuries that one almost needs to check the references, lest we start to think the whole piece is some kind of Borgesian joke; but this is, completely in earnest, a fascinating synthetic argument about the condescension philosophy, even leftist philosophy, shows toward "simple" workers. The tone of the book isn't as hard to pin down as some of Rancière's other work (e.g. the terrific "Ignorant Schoolmaster"), and it is a little more of a scholarly, historical effort, a little more humorous, and a little more accessible than you might expect, but it's still a difficult, intelligent, and rewarding text for the philosophical reader.

No comments about Autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

5 comments about Descartes: The Life and times of a Genius.

1. This book is an extremely well written historical (rather than scholarly) biography, but fails to really present the substance of Descartes' ideas and theories. I also have the following criticisms, in no particular order:
   
   1) I was taught to write in clear simple English. To read this book, you'd better have a dictionary handy. The book, understanably, is written in British English, not modern American English. This is not a fault, but the reader should be aware.
   
   2) This book covers Descartes' journeys theroughout 17th century Europe. Accordingly a map of 17th century Europe, with the cities Descartes visited or lived in would have been invaluable.
   
   3) An Introduction or Appendix discussing at some length the the SUBSTANCE of Descartes' books would also have been invaluable.
   
   4) This book mentions many, many persons in Descartes' life. A brief Appendix commenting on the more critical of these persons would have been helpful. Also, the book sometimes notes that certain characters played key roles in Descartes' life, but sometimes fails to provide much depth about such roles.
   
   5) The book notes that Descartes was held in high regard by other contemporary scholars and intellectuals. Based solely on Mr. Grayling's book, I fail to understand why. But I think that's more a failing of Mr. Grayling's book.



2. This book brings up a very intersting set of connections that seem to explain a lot. True to program this book's focus is on biography instead of philosophy. But the biographical insights are well worth the read on their own. There is a good summary of Descartes' philosophical position in the first appendix. One surprise is how little mention there is of Spinoza especially in those sections that presents Descartes' impact on those who followed him. All in all, this is an excellent book to recommend to those students that want to spend some time on Descartes in an introductory course.



3. I found Grayling's "Descartes" to be an interesting read from a pure biographical perspective. Although I have an interest in philosophy, Grayling writes in a way that reasonably intelligent laypersons can understand. Unfortunately, though, Grayling treads very little new ground, relying on past biographers of Descartes to do the legwork for him. The only new ground the author treads is relaying the proposition that Descartes was a spy. I actually find this plausible for two reasons: one, it explains Descartes' travelling; two, Descartes doesn't talk about his travelling much in his writings. These two factors give Grayling's hypothesis some weight. Grayling doesn't take too much time expositing Descartes' philosophy, but in an appendex he does give a brief introduction to it. Like I mentioned, the author does rely on other biographers for information, but that fact doesn't take away from the quality of the book. One fact that Grayling kept mentioning was that Descartes seemed to want to portray his ideals as acceptable to the church, and also to have his beliefs fit into the framework of "orthodox" theology of the time. I wondered why Grayling kept hitting on this point so many times, and then I came to the following conclusion: Grayling wants to excuse Descartes. One would imagine that if Descartes applied his method to the idea of the existence of God, one would conclude that it would be necessary to doubt, or even reject, the existence of God. Descartes never stated that God didn't exist, nor did he (as far as I know) even doubt it. By not stating that he doubted it, Descartes attempted to stay on good terms with the church. Descartes' later politiking shows me that he was concerned with ensuring his own safety, both physically and financially, which is fine. Grayling doesn't go this far in the book, but I think it is a necessary and unavoidable conclusion; I'm just surprised Graying didn't call Descartes out on it. To conclude this review, Grayling's bibliography is strong, giving the reader lots of roads to travel if one wants to explore the subject further, which I plan to do.



4. This is a very readable, enjoyable and informative book. Professor Grayling takes a lot of time putting Descartes into his proper historical context, which I think is essential to understanding him, or any philosopher. Even abstract ideas don't develop without any reference to what is going on at the time. The problem of reconciling faith with the nascent scientific revolution, the relation between the new anatomy and the locus of the mind, and religious wars of the 17th century were pivotal to the evolution of Descartes' thought. Grayling naturally emphasizes Descartes' philosophical ideas rather than his mathematical or scientific ones, though these also are discussed. Grayling also gives us as good a look as we can get at the motives and preferences of so private a person: the expensive green silk suit that he bought in hopes of securing a title show us a man who is vain rather than austere, despite his reclusive life in the Netherlands, for example. HIs arrogance was as expected, but not his pettiness towards, for example, Beeckman. And that he composed librettos for Queen Christina was a real surprise.



5. I found it to be an excellent book.

1 comments about Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship (New York Review Books Classics).

1. This is the story of a friendship between two of the most remarkable intellectual figures of the twentieth century , Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin. It begins in Berlin in 1914 and continues through their separation until Benjamin's tragic death twenty -five years later. Both of them were greatly interested in the historical processes of their times, in philology , in the meaning of signs and symbols, in Socialism, in Zionism. Scholem left Germany for the Jerusalem of pre- state Israel and became a central figure there in the development of the Hebrew University. He became too the great scholar who opened a new field that of Jewish Mysticism. Benjamin hesitated and seemed to always find the way to misfortune. But their conversation and their friendship illuminates fundamental issues of life and thought. This book should be read by everyone for whom the life of the mind is important.

3 comments about The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin.

1. One of the distinctive elements of the writing of Isaiah Berlin is that he made intellectual history exciting for the reader. His writing has a flair, a sweep a rhythm and way of connecting the story of a thinker with his ideas which keep the reader thinking and awake.
   The essays here are more bland material. And even if in the consideration of Berlin's objective- value-pluralism they do raise 'hard questions' they seem far more 'academic' than Berlin himself was.
   As for the section on Israel and nationalism I am not sure that they underline sufficiently how devoted a Zionist Berlin was.



2. This book, which was published from a conference dedicated to discussing aspects of Berlin's emphasis on value pluralism, is divided into three sections. The first focuses on his pluralism as he saw it within history. The second takes his pluralism and speaks of it in relation to moral theory. The third discusses that pluralism as relating to the question of Israel and nationalism. Obligatory disclosure: I skipped section three as Israel is not a question that interests me, so my review is on the first two sections.

   Now, anyone who's read Berlin knows that he is notoriously hard to pin down. He is to historical to be a philosopher yet to philosophical to be a historian. As one who wrote more historical studies than philosophical essays (in the proper sense) Berlin's thought is hard to synthesize. This book, though, does a good service by focusing on Berlin's central theme: the plurality of values and their connection to history and philosophy. See, for Berlin, no one system could account for our moral lives. Values, ends, means, these all conflict inter- and intra-personally. No system, said he, will resolve these so that they all line up and 'hang together'. Abstractions, too, like Liberty, are meaningless without a concrete context; liberty of what according to who's view? That pluralism is what this book discusses: the first part on its affect on Berlin's historical study, the second on his philosophy.

   There is a great group of thinkers here: Mark Lilla, Michael Walzer, Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Charles Taylor - on and on. The essays, more-or-less, form a consensus and largely find Berlin's pluralism unproblematic as far as its truth goes (the only article that takes issue is Dworkin's). Each thinker, though, has a different take on what accepting pluralism means and whether, if conflicting values is 'inevitable', how far we should go to TRY and reconcile them. That's where the fun is; in these small differences. I should mention to that each section ends with a 20-or-so page 'discussion' section that must have been transcribed during the seminar. We see a lot of good interchange here between the panelists.

   All in all, this is a book that should not be missed by those that find value (or question) in Berlinian pluralism.




3. Can't wait to see this one. Lilla and Dworkin is like a collaboration between Ken Vandermark and Wynton Marsalis.

No comments about The Notebooks of Joseph Joubert.

2 comments about The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt.

1. This is the best all-around survey of and introduction to Carl Schmitt's thought. Balakrishnan does a good job of identifying each of the many, many "turns" in Schmitt's thought and situating each of them within the contemporaneous political developments in German-speaking Europe. There is some basic discussion of Schmitt's personal and religious life, as well as his political allegiances and the vicissitudes of his unstable status within the German establishment. This book is scholarly, clear and readable. If there's a problem with The Enemy, it is that Schmitt's thought does not lend itself to summary. He seems not only to have 'evolved' intellectually over time, but also to have taken simultaneously contradictory positions in contemporaneous works.
   
   Schmitt's brand of legal nihilism is fashionably dangerous. But, in my view, he is an artifact of a bygone moment in German history and has little to teach contemporary Anglo-American lawyers. Schmitt is frequently cited as an intellectual ancestor of Bush's lawyers John Yoo and David Addington but I suspect any similarity is accidental. In any event, the comparison is less than enlightening. However dubious their legal advice, Yoo and Addington both speak the language of precedent, jurisprudence and constitutional authority. Schmitt's arguments were grounded in a muscular continental mysticism - the gestalt of force and submission. Yoo and Addington are perhaps overly concerned with the defense of the republic, but they take its legitimacy for granted. Schmitt was suspicious of the very possibility of parliamentary rule. He sensed that deliberation was an arbitrary process with no logical endpoint. He feared that parliamentary politics was foundationless - that it was, to steal a phrase from Steven Hawking, 'just turtles all the way down.' Schmitt sought sovereign power as the font of political legitimacy - the solid ground beneath the State's feet. He seems to have concluded that sovereign power comes into being through an act of will or faith. This notion is alien to Anglo-American legal thought, where legal authority is derived from text, tradition, history, or natural law. Schmitt is compelling because he shows us an alternative law and politics of reactionary postmodernism - critical legal theory in service to naked power.
   
   In the end, Schmitt is historically important for his two aphorisms: "He is sovereign who decides the exception." and "Tell me who your enemy is and I will tell you who you are." Meditate upon these long enough and you won't need this or any other book on Carl Schmitt.



2. _The Enemy_ provides an excellent and thorough introducion to the life and thinking of the German political philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt. The book traces the developments in his thoughts from his earliest days as a Catholic schoolchild in the Rhineland to his eventual professorship in constitutional law and his involvement with the Third Reich regime and the subsequent developments in his thought after the Third Reich had fallen. Schmitt is normally considered to belong with the "conservative revolutionaries" such as Ernst Junger, Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, and several other important figures in the Weimar republic prior to the advent of the Third Reich. These thinkers were important for their political and philosophical thought which was firmly opposed to liberalism, bolshevism, and modernism. An important aspect behind Schmitt's thought was his Catholicism (however tenuous that link may have become for him at various moments in his life). Certain interpreters of Schmitt have made the claim that Schmitt's writings can be understood on the basis of a "fundamentalist" Catholicism , in which the crisis in the modern world is perceived in apocalyptic terms involving an encounter between Christ and Antichrist. Schmitt became a jurist and a professor of constitutional law and a great deal of his writing is concerned with the application of his political principles to the legal status of the constitution. Schmitt's thinking is heavily influenced by the German Romantics such as Schlegel and Hegelianism, but also has a Latin character influenced by such Catholic counter-revolutionaries as Joseph de Maistre and Donoso Cortes, as well as the writings of Thomas Hobbes in his _Leviathan_, and the writings of Machiavelli. Perhaps Schmitt is most famous for his understanding of the political in terms of the "friend-enemy" distinction. He outlined this distinction in his famous work _The Concept of the Political_. Schmitt came to occupy a central place in the Third Reich regime and was often regarded as the "Crown Jurist" of that regime. The particular problematic of Schmitt's involvement with the Third Reich and his adherence to certain anti-Semitic beliefs is firmly covered in this book. After the defeat of the Third Reich, Schmitt would come to partially renounce some of his earlier alignment with it; however, he would also come to regard the process of denazification which involved him spending several years in captivity as equally abominable. Much of Schmitt's work focused on a particular interpretation of Thomas Hobbes in hiw book _Leviathan_. Schmitt may have believed in an apocalyptic myth involving an obscure quasi-Messianic figure, the Katechon (see the discussion in the book; but also see Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians where it is explained that the Katechon refers to a "restrainer" who is to come). The book also discusses Schmitt's relationship with the new international order subsequent to the Nazi regime. The importance of Schmitt's thought here in regards to our modern era which is closely coming to approximate a New World Order and a system of international law based in the United Nations (i.e. the League of Nations in Schmitt's time) cannot be overestimated. Schmitt's later works include a book entitled _Land and Sea_ which outlines the differences between land and sea powers and a work entitled _The Law of the Earth_. The relationship between a landlocked continental German power and a seafaring English power rooted in the Calvinistic religion plays an important role in Schmitt's writings. Schmitt's later days were spent in relative obscurity as a figure who was considered anathema by the new intellectuals; however, he continued to write and work and gather a group of students around him. Carl Schmitt is a fascinating figure who encountered the dark side and whose thinking still poses interesting questions for the modern world. His distinction between friend and enemy continues to occupy an important place in the role of political theory and although some on the Left have attempted to usurp his ideas, his ideas remain firmly grounded in the tradition of right wing intellectuals of the conservative revolution. This book provides an excellent introduction and outline of his life and thought and is to be highly recommended to all those interested in this figure.

2 comments about The Great Philosophers: The Lives and Ideas of History's Greatest Thinkers.

1. There are books which take a small part of a very large reality and represent it in a good and fair way. And there are other books like this one which take very complex realities and use a small sample of the reality in question to show how unfair such a method can be. I will take one example from this book. There is a chapter here on the political philosopher Hannah Arendt. Hannah Arendt is most well known for her work on the origins of Totalitarianism. But her most comprehensive philosophical effort is her work 'The Human Condition'. What this book does take what is arguably Arendt's least philosophical work her coverage of the Eichmann trial and make that stand for her work as a whole. It is simply bad judgment.
   There are other problems with the work as a whole. The small biographical sketches appended are truly too small to really give a fair idea of the life of the philosopher involved.
   If one is looking for quick understandings of the work of great philosophers I believe one is essentially contradicting what the philosophical enterprise is all about.



2. I bought this book for a breif overview of philosophy, and it's good for that. A page or two on each. But the omission of Epicurus is simply unforgivable! I'm afaid I must grade F.

4 comments about The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower.

1. I enjoyed reading The Chomsky Effect. Barsky does a good job of explaining Chomsky's philosophical influences, some of whom I had not heard of before. This is a good book, but it does have a major flaw: Barsky is so biased in favor toward Chomsky he does not do a balanced analysis of Chomsky's career. I would have preferred a more objective biographer. Notwithstanding this criticism, I highly recommend the book.



2. Chomsky's biographer Robert Barsky has compiled an extremely substantive volume about the wide variety of perspectives on Noam Chomsky's work, including all of the different areas that he has made an impact. Barsky discusses Chomsky's anarchist roots in fine detail, drawing on the writings of Rudolph Rocker (who comes off as Chomsky's greatest influence) extensively. There are also discussions of Chomsky's anti-Bolshevism, which Barsky loyally follows, as well as his meteoric rise to fame in the field of linguistics. I found the chapter on Chomsky's appeal on youth/counter-culture to be redundant and not particularly interesting, though it has clearly become an undeniable aspect of Chomsky's fame in the last ten years. Barsky also takes on the task of defending Chomsky at great length against his various detractors, including Zionists like Alan Dershowitz, and intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens. Barsky also details Chomsky's more controversial battles such as the Faurisson affair and the case of Cambodia (which is severely lacking in this account). There are a number of problems with this account of Chomsky, the most basic of which is how eager Barsky is to not only detail Chomsky's politics and intellectual commitments, but also to accept them himself. For instance, in the discussion on Chomsky's criticisms of the post-modern/post-structuralist movements in Europe, Barsky proceeds to accept even the most flippant of Chomsky's condemnations. Additionally, it is apparent from the text that Barsky does not have any real grasp of this material; he cites two peculiar examples of post modernity's decline: Victor Farias' book on Hediegger's Nazism and Paul De Man's anti-Semitic articles from the 1940s (pps. 242-243). Neither of which are credited as serious examples of 'post modernity's decline by serious scholars of the topic. To his credit, Barsky is not entirely complementary of Sokal and Bricmont's mediocre attacks on post modernity, but never the less it is clear that Barsky does not really know of what he speaks in this section. Two major surprises surface in 'The Chomsky Effect,' Barsky's periodic comparisons of Chomsky to the French anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu, and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, as well as the emphasis on Chomsky's apparent "humor" (chpt. 7).
   All together, Chomsky comes off as an incredibly courageous and brilliant thinker, who has consistently committed himself to freeing others from the shackles of ideological and political power. Although not perfect, 'The Chomsky Effect' is one of the best books about Chomsky's prolific career as a public intellectual.



3. Chomsky is very much like Socrates; but instead of being ordered to drink hemlock, there has been a massive campaign by multiple servants of power and privilege to marginalize him. Countless right-wingers, who haven't read much of Noam's writings, bristle when his name is mentioned. Similarly, many liberals who have some familiarity with Chomsky's ideas have entrenched prejudices against him via the endless calumny, such as, he's a "self-hating Jew," a "conspiracy theorist," or an "apologist for Pol Pot." The efforts to assassinate his character are a sure indicator that Chomsky has probably been doing something worthwhile, such as challenging the preferred illusions not just of war-mongers, but of all sorts of comfortable people who don't want to face some harsh realities. It's much more fun to claim that we "live in the greatest country in the world," than to take a close look at the blood that's on our hands. Moreover, these realizations confer responsibilities, and people are often at a loss as to what they can do against the leviathan of corporate militarism. That would be one weakness in Chomsky's analysis, it's incredibly heavy on the problems and offers little in terms of solutions. But, as another oft quoted source suggests, "seek and ye shall find." Yes!
   
   Others want to dismiss Chomsky because they feel radical politics will bring all sorts of grief into their lives - depression, broken relationships, lost jobs, surveillance, death threats and so forth. And every so often, a figure like Paul Robeson, Ward Churchill, or Jay Benish (an honest high school teacher who was excoriated in Denver's press) is made an example of. Oddly, after Chomsky writes 20,000 pages worth of death and destruction, he scolds people who suggest that there may be some danger in being an activist. As Derrick Jensen and others have noted The Culture of Make Believe, the reason why there isn't a great deal of political repression in this country is because the population is largely pacified Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Organizations like the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movements, the Socialist Workers' Party, and activists like Judi Bari and Norman Finklestein, all have been quite effectively assailed. Chomsky recognizes that people can become "dangerous," but the corporate mafia they go up against knows a little bit about creating danger themselves. The War Against the Greens: The "Wise-Use" Movement, the New Right, and Anti-Environmental Violence Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (South End Press Classics Series, Volume, 7) What Every Radical Should Know About State Repression: A Guide For Activists
   My own feeling is that, while silence can provide protection from unwanted attention from monied interests or agents of an increasingly authoritarian state, that silence is ultimately empowering forces that are threatening not only our immediate well-being (our wages, our health care, our environment, our consumer protections, our children's psyches, etc.), but the very survival of the species. The World Without Us; to say nothing of the brutal assault fellow members of the human family experience at the hands of our masters of war (military war, and economic war).
   Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
   Chomsky's analysis brings forth all sorts of troublesome political, financial, psychological, and emotional issues into our consciousness, and conjures various dilemmas. So when people such as David Horowitz or Alan Dershowitz throw mud in Chomsky's direction, there are many who are quite receptive to the suggestions that they should hate Noam Chomsky. Imagine people who have a career with Lockheed Martin, or have been pulling the trigger on the .50 caliber machine guns; they want a Horowitz to facilitate the longing to just turn away from the horror of books like The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (The Political Economy of Human Rights - Volume I)
   On the other hand, some feel that Socrates had a point when he said "the unexamined life is not worth living."
   Our conglomerate media is filled with "programming" to intimidate people away from political engagement, divert their attention, instill a sense of futility, and so forth. Various shows, movies, sit-coms and ads comprise a very effective psy-ops campaign, the sort of thing that would be "carried out in enemy territory" (to quote one Reagan administration official) The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture. But, for those who value freedom of consciousness, there are ways out of the "web of endless deceit."
   The red pill or the blue pill (borrowing from a scene in "The Matrix"), it's our choice.
   
   To quote one of Chomsky's influences,
   "Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of social life into the straightjacket of its rules. Its intellectual expression is dead dogma, its physical form brute force. And this unintelligence of its objectives sets its stamp on its representatives also, and renders them often stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feelings.
   It was from this understanding that modern anarchism was born and draws its moral force. Only freedom can inspire men to great things and bring about intellectual and social transformations. The art of ruling men has never been the art of educating and inspiring them to a new shaping of their lives. Dreary compulsion has at its command only lifeless drill, which smothers any vital initiative at its birth and brings forth only subjects, not free men. Freedom is the very essence of life, the impelling force in all intellectual and social development, the creator of every new outlook for the future of mankind. The liberation of man from economic exploitation and from intellectual, social, and political oppression, which finds its highest expression in the philosophy of anarchism, is the prerequisite for the evolution of a higher social culture and a new humanity."
   -Rudolf Rocker, "Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism"



4. According to this book Noam Chomsky is one of the most important, if not the most important, intellectual of modern times. This book seeks to examine the effect he has had on thought. It also seeks to examine his history, his causes and his beliefs and his ability to polarize thought through his passionate writing. It examines his stances on Vietnam and the Middle East.
   This book is also a philosophical tour through the world of Chomsky, showing on whome he builds his foundations of thoughts, and on whome he relies for his dialectic of `freedom.' It examines his Marxism and his interest in anarchy, who his philosophical and political ancestors might be. An interesting exploration of Chomsky, but one that probably gives him more credit than he deserves. While he may be the `most important' thinker for a small, tiny, elite, minority of Americans and Europeans, and Hugo Chavez, he is ignored by most of the world as a rambling lunatic and extremist.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman