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

5 comments about Timothy Leary: Outside Looking In: Appreciations, Castigations, and Reminiscences by Ram Dass, Andrew Weil, Allen Ginsberg, Winona Ryder, William Burroughs, ... Huston Smith, Hunter S. Thompson, and Others.

1. Regardless of one's personal opinions about Timothy Leary, one cannot really deny the fact that he was a great man; great in the sense that his thoughts and ideas influenced an entire generation (and continues to do so), and that A LOT of people had - and still have - A LOT of strong feelings about everything he stood for. Perhaps it's too early to figure out how extensive his influence actually was. Everything he talked about didn't revolve around LSD, even though many tend to think just that. What many don't know, for instance, is that he contributed greatly to the field of psychology and developed different tests that are still in use today.
   
   Robert Forte has edited a book, not about Leary's life, but more about people who met him, were familiar with him, were close to him, were affected and influenced by him, and all in all had some sort of relation to him. Some of these people are Winona Ryder (to whom Leary was godfather), Hunter S. Thompson, Albert Hofmann (the chemist who synthesized LSD in 1938), Ken Kesey (another "psychedelic pioneer"), Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burroughs, Robert Anton Wilson, and many more.
   
   Some of the contributions consist of Forte simply interviewing the individual in question, while in other cases the contributor has written the piece him/herself. But it's not all about Leary all the time. Timothy Leary is more a book about the psychedelic revolution itself than about one of its leading advocates. Richard Nixon referred to him as "the most dangerous man in the world", and sure, a great deal of the content is about him, what he accomplished, different incidents in his life, and so on. However, another great deal is about the use and abuse of psychedelic drugs, how they shaped and changed society and individual consciousness, how dangers (or harmless) they actually are, what happens to people who choose to try them, and how these now criminalized drugs could be used beneficially in different sorts of therapies.
   
   It's not the best book on the market if you want to learn more about Timothy Leary's opinions and messages, but on the other hand, it's a great book if you want to know some of the influence and the affect he had on his surroundings. Furthermore, through its use of sensible discussions by and with well-informed and rational people, the book offers great knowledge about the absurd American "War on Drugs" and all the hypocrisy this futile and senseless war is built upon.



2. This is a rich and revealing book that I always recommend to anyone trying to grasp the contradictory figure that was Timothy Leary - not least because many of its subjects are still struggling to grasp exactly what hit them when Leary entered their lives. Highlights for me include the essays by Ram Dass, Robert Anton Wilson and Ralph Metzner, as well as William Burroughs' ability to use a few brief words so well. Winona Ryder's eulogy is also terrific -- it has since been included in Copeland's book on the greatest eulogies of our time, and I liked it so much I used it as the foreword to my own biography on Leary, 'I Have America Surrounded'.
   
   As Forte writes in his introduction, this is "not a biography of Leary, nor an in-depth study of his ideas", and as such the critical review on this page by R. Goldstein seems to have missed the point of the book. Forte is not attempting to be a 'cheerleader' or promote his 'thesis', as is claimed, but instead provides a forum where those who knew Leary could record their memories and reminiscences. True, the majority are positive and loving, but this is no reason to criticize the book. The fact is Leary was deeply loved by many - which is something that those who condemn his character find it convenient to overlook. For this reason the book is an important record, but perhaps more importantly it is those who knew him best who often have the most revealing insights - and this is why the book is so valuable.



3. This book is a source of comfort to anyone disgruntled by Robert Greenfield's less than appreciative bio of Timothy Leary. Editor Robert Forte calls his project a "festschrift," which, if my rusty German holds up, loosely means "celebration of writing." It is by no means balanced; its cover promises castigations but delivers only one, ironically from former outlaw chemist Owsley Stanley. There are polite rebukes of Leary's methods from Huston Smith and Myron Stolaroff, but the rest of the book is mainly a chorus of paeans, a love fest that gets sloppy in places.
   
   Part of Forte's thesis is that Leary will come to be vindicated and revered as another Socrates or Galileo. Inevitably the uptight world will recognize the transformational power of psychedelics and, grasping the keys to the missing link in evolution, start popping them like vitamin supplements. Why millions of grateful acid veterans haven't united to demand a change in the drug laws goes unexplained. Like a lot of other issues the book grazes. Why was Eldridge Cleaver not more supportive of Leary in Algeria? Why was Art Linkletter hostile to Leary? What happened to Leary's children? What was "The Brotherhood" that Forte cryptically refers to a couple of times? What about the charges that Leary betrayed friends, including the lawyers who helped him avoid lengthier prison time? Although Forte concedes that Leary failed "to confront his shadow," the negative aspects of his life, he left the shadowy particulars for Robert Greenfield to detail.
   
   There are other shortcomings. The correspondence between Aldous Huxley and Gerald Heard is vacuous, discussing where and when they plan to meet next. Albert Hofman's contribution is brief. Hunter Thompson's more caustic criticisms of Leary are absent, replaced by a short, all-is-forgiven comment. Some of the respondents use a pretentious argot prevalent in the `60s, reflecting the mindless blather of the drug-addled. And there are outrageous claims that transcendentalist philosophers Emerson and Thoreau took drugs, that psychedelics brought forth the computer revolution and the Internet. At least Forte didn't suggest that psychedelics are "the only visible hope for a race tottering on the brink of extinction." That claim was in a recent letter of complaint from the Leary estate to The New Yorker over the favorable review its critic gave to the Greenfield book.
   
   I don't blame Forte for being a cheerleader. He was only 11 years old during the '67 Summer of Love, so he didn't see the zombies walking down Haight Street and other hippie enclaves ingesting not only psychedelics but other wares sold by hierarchical criminal outfits (such as the Brotherhood?) engaged in the "democratization" of drug distribution. Gosh and golly, why would law enforcement ever consider LSD a gateway to heroin, methamphetamine and crack? Set and setting indeed.
   
   I thought I'd had enough of Leary after reading the Greenfield book, but I picked this one up after browsing its table of contents. It has limited appeal, so I give it three stars: one for the interview with Huston Smith, one for the interviews with Metzner & Stolaroff, and one for likening Leary to Huck Finn. Greenfield mistakenly linked him to Tom Sawyer.



4. Timothy Leary is a mythological figure. Almost everyone has an opinion of him, even if they have never read a word he wrote.
   Often opinions are second-hand filtered through this or that media source.

   The editor for this book, Robert Forte, one
   of Mircea Eliade's last students at the University of Chicago,
   does not provide us with second-hand information that he has digested, but instead, gathers an anthology of viewpoints from those who knew Timothy Leary. Not all are positive, and I was surprized to read the negative remarks of Owlsley Stanley in regards to Leary. Thanks to this compendium, we are allowed past the veil of the myth and get a glimpse of the human Timothy Leary.

   Robert Forte knew Timothy Leary personally and has edited another book, Entheogens and the Future of religion, that I highly recommend.

   Thomas Seay




5. Robert Forte is one of the most important living documentarians of psychedelic history and phenomonology. In this book, he's gathered a myriad voices of people who were really "there" when Leary was influencing people and who therefore have valuable commentary worth hearing -- both positive and negative. The folksy, chatty style of this book make it a pleasure to read. Along with his other book "Entheogens and the Future of Religion," Forte is performing an important informational and documentary service toward a fair assessment of the role that drugs have in society and also of the real-life figures who have affected this. This book is a must read for anyone interested in what Tim Leary (and for that matter, ...) were really like.

4 comments about Within Reason: A Life of Spinoza.

1. Nothing invalidates an historical study more than the imposition of modern values on earlier times. Such an approach misleads the reader and misrepresents the subject. No amount of footnoting and references can redeem a book that applies this century's "political correctness" to attitudes of three hundred years ago. This work is a classic case of the faults of an "a priori" approach to history and philosophy. Gullan-Whur is self-deluded, confused both about Spinoza's life and his thinking, and sadly lacking in historical sense. Gullan-Whur's book makes meagre contribution to the recent studies of Spinoza's life and philosophy.

   The chronological narrative would be a redeeming feature of this book, except that Spinoza's wanderings defy detailed analysis. This isn't Gullan-Whur's fault, but her struggles to locate him physically are on a par with her comprehension of his philosophy. Spinoza, in line with many thinkers of his day, adopted various nom de plumes in his dealings with others. A Jew of Portuguese ancestry living in the Dutch Republic made communication difficult. Gullan-Whur traces his attempts to learn Dutch, Latin, and even a smattering of English. Latin, however, remained the international language. This situation meant that in a given day several languages might be needed according to circumstances. Gullan-Whur blithely ignores this aspect of language and applies one of his various identities according to when and where she's describing his activities. Her variations in Spinoza's names are compounded by her exasperating habit of referring to many of his contemporaries by their given names.

   Within a dozen pages, Gullan-Whur launches into a diatribe on the condition of women in the 17th Century Dutch Republic. A short comment would be understandable, but she returns to this theme throughout the book. At one point she accuses Spinoza of being both "arrogant" and "misogynist". As a final thrust, she entertains the notion that Spinoza's solitary life indicates a propensity to homosexuality. As final point, she abhors his affection for pipe smoking.

   Gullan-Whur's attempt to deal with Spinoza's philosophy is little short of catastrophic. She trolls his writings to substantiate her pre-conceived notions. Using the material like a condiment, she sprinkles quotations from his writings throughout the text. These must be constantly referenced in the Notes to determine the source. The validity of the statements she attributes to him must be assumed. In most cases she imputes the citation to some early period in his life, implying that all his ideas were fixed at an early age. Development of ideas is apparently alien to her. The result is a goulash which the reader must reverse-engineer to derive some logical progression of thought. Given the breadth of Spinoza's ideas, her approach invalidates much of his thinking. This book has no place in early Enlightenment studies. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]




2. Margaret Gullan-Whur's biography of Spinoza does a fairly good job of placing Spinoza's work within a philosophical, social, and historic context. The connections between the works of Hobbes and Descartes and Spinoza show intellectual reaction and continuity. The connections and associations between Spinoza's work and the Dutch Reform Church and the Jewish community in Amsterdamn seem logically constructed and documented. The potential influence of the rise of the de Witt brothers and their assassination also was also thoughtfully developed. I needed this background of Dutch protestantism, the rise of the Dutch republic, and the philosophical forefathers to better place Spinoza's thought. It is interesting that he and Rembrandt were contemporaries and yet there is no evidence that either knew of the works of the other. The final chapters where Gullan-Whur records the commentaries of Goethe, George Elliott, George Santayana, Bertrand Russell, and David Hume to the work of
   Spinoza further places his work in context from the perspective of later centuries.

   Bertrand Russell's quotation: "The noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural
   consequence he was considered, during his lifetme and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness."

   This observation by Russell is fully illustrated throughout the book as Spinoza struggles to express his philosophy while staying under the 'radar" of the repressive cultural and religious forces of his day.

   A quotation by Hegel: "The allegations of those who accuse Spinoza of atheism are the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God." is also fully illustrated by the exploration of Spinoza's philosophy that is integrated into the biography.




3. Margaret Gullan-Whur is a victim of bad timing. A Spinoza scholar, she released her book around the same time as Steven Nadler's excellent biography of Spinoza. Spinoza poses large problems for any biographer, for the vast majority of his life was "lived" in the public sphere. Letters from friends and intimates were destroyed. Whereas Nadler presents a straightforward biography heavy on philosophical analysis, Gullan-Whur, by contrast, attempts a psycho-biography of Spinoza, attempting to fill in the gaps in his life with speculation concerning his philosophical works, particularly the "Ethics." She tries to tie in the philosophical chapters, especially those on sexual desire, with speculation about Spinoza's life.

   At times, when solid facts are there, her speculation is strong . . . but at other times, we are led down the road of fantasy, as in her specualtions on pp. 142-43 of a homosexual relationship between Spinoza and a Dutch student. And having made the speculation, she wonders what we are to think of it before wavering as to its veracity concerning Spinoza, citing a recent Dutch novel about Spinoza being homosexual. How can we be sure when she admits she isn't even sure. Who is the biographer here and who is the reader?

   When dealing in the world of facts, Gullan-Whur is strong, evincing a strong, imaginative writing style. The first two chapters of her book are a joy to read. However, when dealing with the restrictions of biography, she comes off a distant second to Nadler. It would have been far better, given her fluid, imaginative writing style, to have penned a philosophical novel about the life of Spinoza. There she could have speculated to her heart's content.




4. Poor Margaret Gullan-Whur. Clearly, she worked on this biography of Spinoza for some years, even going to the trouble of teaching herself Dutch to research the seventeenth-century Jewish philosopher's life. And then, just as it's finally published, Cambridge University Press brings out Stephen Nadler's *Spinoza: A Life*, a book that in its dispassionate tone, its even-handed treatment of potentially scandalous subjects, and in its deep and thoughtful treatment of Spinoza's Jewish milieu, puts *Within Reason* very deeply into the shadows. It's hard to write about a philosopher who died over 300 years ago, and left almost nothing in the way of scandals or love letters. Gullan-Whur compensates by inventing a homoerotic relationship between Spinoza and a Dutch student (along the way showing her complete ignorance of the reams of scholarly work done in recent years on issues of Renaissance sexuality); by teasing out at great length the issues involved in Spinoza's "excommunication" by the Amsterdam synagogue (along the way showing her complete ignorance of Judaism in general--the "oral law" is NOT, repeat NOT, to be confused with the kaballah); and by generally wearing on her sleeve her manifest dislike for Spinoza as a person. The only thing that saves the book is its fairly lively writing, and some vivid pictures of seventeenth-century Amsterdam. Otherwise, it's a historical novel. Read Nadler, if you want to know anything about the philosopher Spinoza. If you want to learn about Margaret Gullan-Whur, read this.

No comments about Orestes A. Brownson: American Religious Weathervane (Library of Religious Biography Series).

No comments about McDowell and His Critics (Philosophers and their Critics).

1 comments about G. K. Chesterton: Thinking Backward, Looking Forward.

1. A late Victorian-era/early modern age author/thinker, some of whose writings were precursors to science fiction and others which are seen as reactionary and in some cases bigoted and narrow-minded, G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) is impossible to categorize. And Clark doesn't try. Rather than attempt to give a coherent, rational perspective of the prolific English author--an inevitably procrustean effort--Clark critiques many of Chesterton's diverse writings. Not only something of an exegesis of these writings, the critiques also entail putting them in a social context, noting their influence, and explaining what was controversial or provocative about them. Clark does not go so far as to be an apologist, but gives some background for a broader view of Chesterton's seemingly outdated and sometimes offensive opinions and remarks which have been called anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and anti-Darwin. As Clark--an English professor of philosophy--shows, all of Chesterton's writings and ideas, inspiring as well as irksome, grew out of his ingrained, vital, immense optimism. This optimism not only aroused him to be sharply critical of contemporary influences such as nihilism and science and progressive social developments such a women's suffrage and relativism, but also gave him a vision of ideal, desirable conditions for humanity.

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.

3 comments about Autobiography of Giambattista Vico.

1. In his essay Fictions of the Self, Michael Sprinker addresses the tension that exists between the concepts of the individual with a unique identity, and the person as a sign, an unidentifiable image. This tension specifically comes forward when one considers the author of an autobiography. Sprinker addresses how Foucault questioned the existence of an authorizing subject within a text, and how Lacan questioned the sovereignity of a subject in its "intersubjective discourse with the Other".
   It is in this context that Sprinker talks about the autobiography, and specifically Vico's Autobiography. As every text is a product of discourses between texts, the autobiography can be read in this way too, and Vico's Autobiography is a brilliant example, as it is a work that constantly reminds the reader of its origins in other works and discourses. Nowhere in Vico's work can one find a claim of originality or unique subjectivity (unlike in Rousseau's Confessions). Instead, Vico decided to write his autobiography in the third person, and therefore, according to Sprinker, he allowed his identity "to emerge in the act of writing that constructs the Autobiography". Indeed, in his Autobiography Vico made the endeavor to investigate the sources that led to his own writings, especially the New Science, and offers insight into his intellectual background and the genesis of his thoughts.
   As Sprinker notes, Vico made it very clear in his autobiography that he considered himself an autodidact, independent from other philosophers and writers, and yet the Autobiography portrays itself as a product from the influence of their works. This seems like a paradoxical statement by Vico, but taking into account that Vico regarded history as repetition, with every period being unique because of its differences from the others, yet "a recurrence of the universal pattern", we should read the Autobiography with a similar attitude. Vico's work is unique and independent because it is influenced by other works and ideas and produces differences from these influences. It is a case of what Sprinker calls a "simultaneous confirmation of similarity and discontinuity".



2. Thanks to those who have emailed me about Vico.

   To date there have been five responses to my previously posted request. (above)

   1) A reader from Mexico read about Vico in a history of Philosophy.

   2) A reader from Israel read about Vico in a book by Moshe Barasch, Modern Theories of Art, 1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814710611/

   3) A reader from England read about Vico in the works the philosopher Isaiah Berlin.

   4) A Beckett scholar from Texas found Vico through Beckett, a protégé of Joyce.

   5) A reader from NYC found Vico through McLuhan.

   Note the email address for those interested in responding about how they ... riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodious vicus of recirculation back to Vico.

   And as note of Interest, I liked the book better the second time through. It's worth the time to read it. Hurry up and order it before they run out of copies.

   bp




3. "The Vico road goes round and round to meet where terms begin..." writes James Joyce in Finnegans Wake, whereas well, Vico appears as Mr. John Baptister Vickar. The opening page of FW has the hundred-lettered clap of Vico's all initiating thunder, which recurs at intervals. Vico's ideas have permeated the consciousness of everyday thought, having been placed there by Karl Marx, James Joyce, Marshall McLuhan, and Joseph Campbell to name a notable few.

   It is an honest account of a life lived ex-centric. His insights into the history of civilization were (and still are) a far cry from Orthodox historical exegesis, and he paid a great personal price to develop and hold them. However, there is an enthusiasm and vitality that exudes from his stated ideas, and this book serves as a firm stepping stone into the thought expressed in his New Science.

   The introduction by the translators helps establish a context for Vico and his New Science, and establishes Vico as one of the first to write an autobiography, an art from that didn't have a formal name at that time.

   If you are interested in this book, you likely came here from Joyce or McLuhan to drink from their source. If not, I would like to know what other paths lead to Vico, and an email to me would be appreciated as to the commodius vicas of recirculation back to Vico.

   Budd Poston

1 comments about Alvin Plantinga (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus).

1. One can really deepen their understanding of Plantinga's principles by reading what other comptemporary philosophers have to say about his work.
   I believe Plantinga has broken a lot of new ground, and it is fascinating to see how other leaders in the field are digesting his work. This work also contains Plantinga's notes on his speech regarding "A Dozen or So Arguments for God."
   My highest recommendation. As a non-trained neophyte in the world of philosophy, I found this book very rewarding in putting some context to Plantinga's work. I would not recommend reading this review, however, without first reading Plantinga himself. In particular, I would recommend "Warranted Christian Belief" and "God and Other Minds."
   A number of his essays are also online.

No comments about Roger Bacon's Life And Work.