3 comments about Correspondence 1926-1969.

1. I have found CORRESPONDENCE 1926 - 1969 of Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers to be enormously entertaining, easy to read, and surprisingly foreboding about problems in the book trade caused by foreign indebtedness. Politically, each date brings chilling summaries. For Hannah Arendt in America, on June 3, 1949, "At the moment, the general political atmosphere is dismal here, particularly at the universities and colleges (with the exception of the very eminent ones)." (pp. 136-137). This letter 90 has several notes on pages 714-715 which give details that are sure to be humorous now for anyone who has ever heard of Aspen, where the leaves all turn at the same time because the roots are interconnected, as perjury suspect Libby Scooter informed New York Times reporter Judy Miller in a letter urging her to end her days in prison and testify in 2005 so an investigation of White House activities relating to the identity of CIA WMD analyst Plame could be resolved quickly. According to this book, Hutchins, the president of Chicago University, was the nominal organizer of a two-week conference and Goethe celebration in July 1949 in Aspen, Colorado, attended by José Ortega y Gasset, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Simon, Stephen Spender, and Thornton Wilder. Letter 90 was a response to articles that had been written by the "Bonn Romanticist Ernst Robert Curtius, 1886-1956," (p. 714) who would also be at the conference:
   
   "The real power behind it is a German-American, a real-estate dealer, who recently bought up a ghost town and then had the commercially brilliant idea of tying Goethe into his business. His sole motive is to exploit Goethe to make this town world famous, so he can then make a bundle of money from tourists. The whole thing is really quite marvelous. The second backer, however, is a less amusing figure: Do you remember Bergstrasser from Heidelberg? After he had successfully accommodated himself to the regime, it was shown that he had a whole string of Jewish ancestors. He is the real moving force behind this program." (p. 136).
   
   Curtius had published a polemic in Germany on April 2, 1949 which accused Jaspers of making "our collective guilt so plain to us that we can continue to live only with a guilty conscience. A Wilhelm von Humboldt of our time, he laid out guidelines for German universities, until he turned his back on them. ... He is crowning these national pedagogical efforts with a `campaign in Switzerland' that is directed against Goethe. Habemus Papam!" (pp. 714-715). In response to the comments of some Heidelberg professors, Curtius replied on May 17, 1949, and finally on July 2, 1949, with a title, "Goethe, Jaspers, Curtius." (p. 715). `Die Zeit' might be to blame for that title, which reeks of arrogance.
   
   In any event, books in those days were considered significant enough that the move by Jaspers to Switzerland, as advised by Hannah Arendt on June 30, 1947, (when Jaspers was giving guest lectures in Basel), "we would do best not to settle down too permanently anywhere, not really to depend on any nation, for it can change overnight into a mob and a blind instrument of ruin" (p. 91), which made publication of books by Jaspers much easier, was resented by Germans who had already spent the money those books would earn. America was a great place for books by Jaspers to make money, and Hannah Arendt did her part to make sure that the translators selected by the publishers were able to express what Jaspers was saying in some form of English that readers could understand. Sounding like an American, Jaspers wrote on July 20, 1947:
   
   "We are living in paradise here. My wife is already cutting back at table for fear of putting on weight." (p. 93)



2. Jaspers and Arendt cover everything and everyone: Sartre, Heidegger, Marx, Goethe, Camus; post-WWII Germany, "the infinitely complex red-tape existence of stateless persons," the Cold War, the "senile" Eisenhower administration, Eichmann, totalitarianism, the atom bomb, local democracy--it's all there. So too is a life-long, extremely close friendship between people who weathered a war from different sides of the globe, who faced cold war terror in radically different ways, who loved their spouses intensely but felt somehow separated by differences in world-view tracable to ethnicity(Gertrude was ethnically Jewish and Heinrich was ethnically Christian). Her admiration of him, her intellectual debt to him, her love for him; his seeming amazement at her vivacity, his admiration of her intellect, his cold, German form of love--and the walls cracking, and his sentiment sometimes pouring through.

   It's a warm book up until the very last entry, Arendt's address at Jaspers' funeral. That's enough to send a shiver up your spine--but only if you read it in the context of everything else.




3. In 1926 Hannah Arendt was a student of Karl Jaspers at Heidelberg University. What began as the questions of a student to her teacher in 1926 blossomed into a friendly correspondence that ended with Arendt's forced emigration from Nazi Germany to the United States, with a stopover in France in the 30s, and then resumed in the Postwar years completely transformed into a rich, detailed dialogue between colleagues and friends, taking on a father-daughter feeling in many of the letters.

   It was during the years after 1945 that the two examined everything about their world and themselves. Of particular importance were the dual issues of German guilt for the war and, for Jaspers, what it meant to be a Jew, for not only was Arendt and her husband Jewish, but also Jaspers's wife. This issue becomes intertwined in their conversations about the future of West Germany, the Suez War of 1956, and Arendt's trip to Jerusalem to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann. When they shift the political into the personal, Martin Heidegger, a colleague of Jaspers and a teacher of Arendt, is there for taking. The passages concerning Heidegger are quite gossipy at times and lend the reader a voyeuristic look into the private worlds of Arendt and Jaspers. It's almost as if when things get dull and weighty, a little dirt about Heidegger adds just the spice to make the letter memorable.

   The other strong point of this book is the portrait Arendt paints of politics in 1950s America, succinctly analyzing the Eisenhower (and later Kennedy) Administrations, describing the collapse of the cities in the 60s, and the "pointless" war in Vietnam. It's almost as if a mirror were held up to history, as insights about those turbelent times pour forth from every letter dispatched.

   An invaluable book, not only for those interested in the scholarly events of the times, but for anyone interested in the history of the times.

5 comments about Letters of Ayn Rand.

1. I must confess, when I first received Letters of Ayn Rand from my sister as a birthday present, I wasn't very motivated to read it. I had read most of Ayn Rand's novels and a few books and essays about her life, so I thought it would be very similar to what I already knew about her. Was I pleasantly surprised! Reading her personal letters written to everyone from literally the boy and girl next door to Frank Lloyd Wright and Barbara Stanwyck gave me an insight into Rand's personality and values that can't be found elsewhere. What comes out in her letters is how seriously she takes not only her own ideas, but the ideas of others. The book is organized chronologically, so one can trace the development of her ideas as well as her successes (and a few disappointments). I was also very surprised to learn how actively involved she was in the marketing of her novels. She wasn't just passively standing by hoping people would read her novels; rather, she gave suggestions to the publisher and edited marketing materials. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the fascinating personality and incredible mind behind The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.



2. This collection of Ayn Rand's letters is an interesting and important addition to her works. It was edited by Michael Berliner, then-executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. (ARI advocates the "Official Objectivism" of Leonard Peikoff.) For those who know Rand through her at times shrill writing and the self-serving accounts of former insiders, this collection presents a valuable "other side" to Rand. Written over a period of 55 years, we read love letters to her husband, letters to friends and fans, and letters to politicians. In fact, Rand corresponded with some of the most famous people of the century, such as Alexander Kerensky, H. L. Mencken, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Barry Goldwater, to name a few. The philosophical portions of the letters are quite meaty, and Rand obviously put a great deal of effort into her correspondence.

   Not surprisingly, the only letters to Nathaniel Branden included were written before he became her associate. The end result is that Branden's contributions to Objectivism are downplayed, which is typical of the material produced by the ARI. (For example, even though Rand approved of Branden's writings published prior to their split, they do not appear in THE AYN RAND LEXICON or other post-split collections.)

   The most interesting selections are the letters to Isabel Paterson and the distinguished philosopher John Hospers. In order to get permission to quote Hospers' comments contained in Rand's letters, the editor was obliged to include a statement from Hospers. As Hospers says, Rand occasionally misrepresented or misunderstood his point, so printing only Rand's letters to Hospers makes him "look like a bloody fool. . . . And that isn't quite fair, is it?"




3. ...in order for a book like this to be published. But finally we get a real look into the private life of a fascinating author and philosopher. Having just finished a number of years at PSU, it seems clear that Objectivism is making headway as a serious philosophical view.

   I'm more interested in music myself than philosophy, but I did notice that in the study of philosophy the Ball that Miss Rand got rolling so many years ago has gathered quite a bit of size and speed. Her ideas made sense to me both before and after I studied Logic, Semantics, and Philosophy. In fact, after studying the "big boys," as one professor of mine called them, I definitely saw a need for a philosophy that states that things are what they are!!

   Anyway, I'm devouring this book!!!




4. Perhaps I was just coming down off of an Ayn Rand high when I read this, but whatever the case, this collection of correspondance just doesn't deserve a place beside Rand's self-published work, which is in sufficient abundance to make a collection like this unwarranted.

   If you are thoroughly absorbed into Rand's Cult of Personality (amazingly effective even after her death), then you will probably enjoy this work. There was certainly a time where I would have devoured every letter. If, on the other hand, you have been impressed and affected by The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, or Anthem, I would strongly suggest working through Rand's nonfiction before diving into this book.




5. Ayn Rand is the author of numerous philosophical works, fiction and non-fiction alike. She is best known as the founder of her unique Objectivist philosophy, which is essentially concerned with individual men acting in their own rational self-interests, coupled with a strong moral defense of free-market Capitalism. Her ideas are very complex, yet easily grasped by the interested reader.

   “Letters of Ayn Rand” is a wonderful book for Rand fans, however I think many of the ideas will be lost on newcomers. “Letters” contains almost 60 years worth of personal letters Miss Rand wrote during the course of her lifetime. We have a very wide range of recipients for her letters here, everyone from philosophers, heads of state, newspapermen, literary agents, Hollywood types, fans, political organizations, you name it. Rand was just as eloquent and blunt with her letter writing as with her “serious” writing.

   I very much enjoyed following Rand’s career through these letters. We start with a young Russian woman trying to settle in to American life, through a writer’s struggles to get her work published, and ending with the writings of an established philosopher ahead of her time. Rand fought tooth and nail to get both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” published as written, however we learn that she was not entirely against having editorial assistance. Rand understood the editor’s job of providing constructive criticism of her work; however she always stood tall and insisted on making any sort of changes to her works personally. She never tolerated any sort of editorial “rewrites” of her novels or her original screenplays, etc.; Rand fought many tough battles with editors, publishers, film producers, etc. during the course of her writing career for the purpose of having her work stand as written by her hand ALONE. This was very difficult to do back in the 40s and 50s (probably more so today), as witnessed by her numerous letters to the powers-that-be.

   Rand was brutally honest with everyone she wrote letters to, including family members and adoring fans. Rand was helping to support a niece during the girl’s troubled high school days. Rand then found out that the girl and her caretakers weren’t being up front with her, and subsequently told her relatives in no uncertain terms that Rand’s assistance for the girl is NOT charity and that her help is NOT unconditional. In other instances, fans of Rand who misinterpreted her books were shown little sympathy; not because Rand was against teaching fundamentals of her philosophy (she acted as a teacher far more often than not), but because the letter-writer seemed to have purposefully missed Rand’s crucial philosophical points. Rand had no patience for those who would claim to be fans of “The Fountainhead”, yet ask her to support causes that did not match the ideas of her novels. Her voice is always clear, and her uncompromising use of reason and logic are unmatched.

   There are some complaints from other reviewers regarding the choice of publishing Rand’s numerous letters to philosopher John Hospers. The argument revolves around the choice of not publishing Hospers’s responses to Rand, and that the letters presented here are “one-sided”. While I can understand the argument, the fact is that this book is intended to be “Letters of Ayn Rand”, not “Letters of John Hospers”. It is made clear to the reader that Rand and Hospers had numerous conversations other than their written correspondence, and Rand’s letters to Hospers are only a small portion of their conversations. Therefore, EVEN IF Hospers letters were published alongside Rand’s, the discussions between the two would remain incomplete. I myself have no problem reading Rand’s letters to him without having the other side published, mostly because I trust Rand to have been honest with her rebuttals of Hospers’s ideas.

   Another complaint revolves around the lack of letters to / from Nathaniel Branden. The philosophical split between Rand and Branden is well known, however I think the choice to ignore their (probable) arguments within these pages was a sound one. Certainly, Rand and Branden’s long term working relationship included far more than dissenting letters between the two of them. Branden and Rand worked side by side for many years, and I find it unlikely that the details of their split are to be found strictly in the form of “letters” to each other. It is much better for both parties in my opinion to refrain from detailing their split, as Rand is not longer with us to defend herself. Truly, I would love to know what went on to cause their split, but I would rather know nothing at all than hear only one side.

   I came away with a better understanding of many of Rand’s ideas, which is significant because I have already read the bulk of Rand’s published works. Rand arrives at her conclusions in a different manner within her letters, and the “different” approach presented here served to make clearer her attitudes towards life and politics. Certainly, it was a blessing to read her answers to specific questions, as there are ideas within her work that are difficult to grasp when told from only one angle.

   This book is a treasure trove for all Rand fans, but is not for beginners. Rand makes many references to characters and events within her philosophical novels that come across as cryptic to readers not familiar with the material. After reading “Letters of Ayn Rand” in full, the Rand “novice” would come away with a rudimentary, patchwork feel for her ideas at best, so I cannot recommend this book unless you have already read “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” at the very least.

1 comments about Simone Weil: A Brief Introduction.

1. Stephen Plant does a service to this interesting, yet frequently overlooked Christian thinker of the 20th century. Plant covers the life and thought of Simone Weil in this brief introduction. He writes in a lucid manner that is accessible to both the theological veteran and novice alike. If you have any interest in Simone Weil, but do not know where to start, this book may be your answer.

5 comments about Bertrand Russell: 1921-1970, The Ghost of Madness.

1. As other reviews point out, Monk, who worships Wittgenstein and was generally sympathetic in treating the first half of Russell's life, turns totally negative in the second volume. He criticizes Russell's popular hack-work writing, his radical politics, and his chaotic sexual and family life. Even if one were to share Monk's politics and prudery,Monk overgeneralizes his attack on Russell, Monk's criticisms of Russell go beyond this even to Russell's technical work. An example of this is Monk's treatment of Russell's book "The Analysis of Matter." (Monk, pp.71-3.)Monk dismisses Russell's structural account of physics, and backs his rejection by citing Russell's own premature acceptance of the thrust of the critical review by the topologist Newman. Russell, despite his apparent vanity and enormous ego tended to overly quickly accept criticism of others, for instance Wittgenstein's criticism of the early manuscript of Russell's theory of knowledge, which the latter did not himself publish. Ironically structuralism or structural realism is a major contender in the philosophy of contemporary theoretical physics. Many cutting edge philosophers of modern physics, for instance Steven French and James Ladyman, treat this approach as a live and serious option. Others, such as Thomas Ryckman treat it as an opposing view worthy of counter-argument. Monk, driven by his anti-Russell animus gone wild, casually dismisses this approach as worthless, ignorant of more recent developments in the philosophy of physics.
   Another example is in Monk's treatment of Russell's more serious historical and political writings. Monk dismisses Russell's work "Power" (pp. 212-14) as simply an emotive and banal piece of sermonizing, devoid of any theoretical analysis. It is odd then that Steven Lukes, for instance, includes Russell, along with theorists such as Max Weber, Hannah Arendt, Georg Simmell, Habermas, John Kenneth Garlbraith, and Foucault, in his anthology on "Power."
   Similarly Monk dismisses Russell's "Freedom and Organization 1814-1914" as "amateurish" and "not a serious contribution to the historical literature" because it does not contain historical research based on original documents. He ignores that it might be a useful and insightful summary of the main trends of the period.
   These are just three examples of the way that Monk in his vendetta against Russell and in some ways understandable dislike of Russell's personality has to discredit even Russell's more serious contributions of his later period.



2. 
   Having read "Wittgenstein", then vol 1 of this biography, this was a natural and exciting follower. I certainly have to wonder what connection there is to a life associated, at least ab initio, with mathematics and failure in one's personal life. Considering the connection between logic, mathematics, and reasoning, and our need for success with those to be successful in one's life in general, this certainly brings up an issue of a golden mean between extremes. It perhaps also brings up an issue of autism and the genetic predisposition to autism as a range of autism might on one hand lead to outstanding mathematical accomplishment accompanied by outstanding social failure.
   
   It is such a shame that such a great mind would give up such important work for lack of - self discipline? Self control? A family madness? Most telling I thought was the quote given in response to the question "Why did you give up philosophy?" Since his response is shocking but stabs to the heart of the personal difficulties experienced by BR and successfully passed on to almost all of his children and grandchildren one has to wonder was this nurture or nature. A clue seems to be the success of those who had the earliest and longest break in contact. The less contact the more success?
   
   Perhaps an errata sheet should be made available regarding the apparent deleted words. One sentence especially seemed to need "not" to make sense in context, but in general I found my reading to be abruptly halted with the awareness of a word missing - in a context where I could know precisely what word would have been right. I half wonder if RM was using a new word processor or something? I did not notice this at all with vol. 1.
   
   Regardless, of all the things worth reading this will always be high on my recommend list. Great philosophers are easier to understand when we know as much as we can about them as persons. Thanks Ray! Eternally grateful.



3. Because of Russell's political views (his opposition to war and U.S. imperialism) he has always been the subject of attacks by other intellectuals (the late Sidney Hook is a prime example). One only has to compare Monk's work on Russell to his biography of Wittgenstein ("The Duty of Genius" says it all). The interesting thing about each of Monk's biographies is that while both men led solitary lives and maintained erratic beliefs and behavior, Russell is castigated as a "madman" while Wittgenstein is a "genius." It is far too easy as a biographer to portray intellectual celebrities as either geniuses or madman. If you want to hear from the person, Bertie Russell, read his biography instead.



4. This exceptional book is a sequel to The Spirit of Solitude, written by Ray Amok, which covers the first 50 years of Russell's life, and which could be summarized by achieving world fame and academic glory by means of his early work as a philosophical mathematician, specially trough his "Principia Matematica",a monumental theoretical work, with the co-authorship of Whitehead.

   Ray Monk magistrally portrays Russell as facing now the challenge of taking a new direction to his life, trying to achieve the same level of academical glory when entering into new fields of knowledge. The story is of a genius who had to prove to himself that he had not lost his intelectual vigour in the ageing proccess and at the same time , balancing his mundane needs trough popular texts written to readers not specialized in philosophy and mathematics, and many other areas where he was proficient.

   He marriages now for the second time in his life, with Dora, with he would generate a son (John) and a daughter (Kate), began for him a new era as an educator and as a mass-comunicator, where he approached all the available means (newspapers, magazines, radio panels and lectures) in order to make money thus providing the material means for his special ideas on how to educate his children. He wrote many books on the subject and even inaugurated a special school where his two children where educated along with the children of some upper-class Englishmen and Americans.

   He was two be married again twice and to have more children with Peter (yes, a very special nickname of his third wive). In terms of the outcome he got, it was nothing anyone could foresee at the beginning.

   To sum it up, the book is a faithful portrait of a tormented man, surrounded by all kinds of people who loved/hated him, and who seems to destroy every inch of happiness one could have before getting to know him. Strange as it seems, the man who was trying to save the world with his pacifist stand against nazism, and later comunism, and all forms of totalitarianism, was incapable of understand the human nature of all people who lived with him.

   This is a good book to read to everyone interested in philosophy and in the life of the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.




5. The chilling story of Bertrand Russell's disastrous later life: his ferocious battles with his children, wives and mistresses, his financial needs covered by second-rate newspaper articles and American lectures for older women, his sometimes quite naive political struggles on the side of socialism (all land and capital must be the property of the State) and the peace movement. At the end of his life, he allowed himself to be totally neutralized by an American CIA agent (I quote Bryan Magee). For the author, the reason for these disasters were two fundamental traits of Russell's character: a deep seated fear of madness (a constant in his family) and a quite colossal vanity.
   The big shock of his life was the destructive First World War. He became a profound misanthrope, who lost all confidence in humanity. It put nearly an end to all serious philisophical and mathematical work.
   Thoroughly documented and extremely well narrated work. The author is very good acquainted with philosophy and mathematics. I miss one name in this provoking work: Karl Popper.

No comments about The Essential Writings (Oxford World's Classics).

2 comments about The Wine of Wisdom: THe Life, Poetry and Philosophy of Omar Khayyam.

1. The seems to be a lot of redundancy in the first part of the book but the overall information, history and review of the philosophy is well presented.
   A very interesting book and enjoyable to read.



2. I am a filmmaker who spent 7 years making a feature film about the legendary mathematician, astronomer, poet of Persia, Omar Khayyam. I cannot think of another book published in this world that gives a more complete and thorough understanding of Khayyam. Dr. Aminrazavi's book is a scholarly masterpiece that illuminates the reader's mind with well researched, solid facts debunking the myths surrounding Khayyam. Each chapter clearly lays out the author's own struggle with what is fact and what is fiction. The book also explores Khayyam's vast influence on literature in the West. If there is anyone out there who wants an encyclopedic look into the mind of the 11th Century genius with the soul of a poet, look no further...purchase Wine of Wisdom today!

No comments about Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life.

No comments about Recovering the Icon: The Life and Works of Leonid Ouspensky.

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 John Dewey in China: To Teach and to Learn (Suny Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture).