3 comments about Jean-Paul Sartre: Hated Conscience of His Century, Volume 1: Protestant or Protester?.

1. I don't know what's wrong with the next reviewer (I suspect it's Anne Coulter with a fake moustache- Hi Anne!). Yes, Sarte supported some bad people, and some not so worthy causes- but then if we are to judge the Soviets and China for their victims- does that mean turning a blind eye to the countless dead in Argentina, Guatemala, Chile, El salvador, Columbia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran, and God knows how manyother places where regimes were overturned and dictators installed and bombs dropped either with US Aid/money/training or directly by us.

   Choose your evils. Sartre had more gumption than most when it came to calling out his age on its evils. Are we to blame him because, post-WWII he turned away from a non-poitical stance and embraced a left-wing ideology?

   This is a short, consise bio, and I think the best on the market of its kind. If you are looking to round out your perception of this enigmatic thinker- pick up a copy!

   -Ed Niles




2. When you read over a hundred books a year like I do, you sometimes find yourself looking for "bargain" books to save a few bucks, especially if the subject is rather controversial. Who'd have thought you could find yourself feeling that you overpaid for a book that cost $2? This is such a book. Sartre is a phase that most kids go thru, like pimples, before they grow up and understand the world. Yes, we are here a short time and then we die. Get over it.
   For Gerassi, a noted leftist, this book is more of an admission that he, like his friend Sartre, never grew up. While it is hard to read this book and not feel sorry for someone who will die an adolescent, I feel even worse knowing that the kind of nonsense Gerassi expounds about his fellow traveler in this book is probably standard fare dished out to the unsuspecting innocents in his political science classes at CUNY. What can you say about a book which fawns over a person like Sartre, whose entire life consisted of his fawning over mass murderers and criminals of the left? This book is a classic example of leftist snobbery, where Stalin's extermination of millions of Georgians, Ukrainians and others by starvation is ignored and the extermination of millions of Jews by an equally evil totalitarian criminal like Hitler is condemned. Sartre's equal admiration of mass murderers like Mao and Castro is made to look "enlightened" when it is simply outrageous. The only redeeming part of the book is that you can understand Sartre's narcissism and self-loathing to be possibly attributable to his warped childhood and excessive use of drugs and alcohol. I'd be nauseated and depressed too if I were as screwed up as he was.
   What an unfortunate end of being and nothingness for a poor, naked, innocent little tree to give up its life to provide the paper this book was printed on. But maybe it will have a happier end and become a doorstop or some other higher purpose.



3. One of the best sartre bios out there (and the official one). Volume One- It has the dual fortune of being both a quick read and a decent intro to Sartre's life and thought. It also calls him on his *ish*, which is rare for biographers. (Gerassi's parents were Spanish -ok his mom wasn't but married into it- friends of Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir, in fact both his mother and father as well as Jean hismelf became the basis for characters in sartre's 'Roads to Freedom' Series of novels).

   While not as massive a compendium as the Annnie Cohen-Solal bio, this has much to reccommend it. In fact, preciseley that it is not the massive compendium reccommends it in my eyes. Who has time for that but the intellectual janitors in their ivory towers? Gerassi knows Sarte's works quite well, but primarily- he knew the man himself and he gives interesting insights into many anecdotes and ideas.

   My feelings towards Sartre tend to be passionately ambivalent. I don't care for his philosophy, which will always be 'cool' to the pseudo-sophisticates who don't even possess a thorough grasp of it... I was enchanted with him in my teens mainly because of his persuasive skill with words (the man was an extraordinary wordsmith), and I will always be deeply enamored of his novels. 'nausea,' alone I feel should secure his place in the history of literature.

   There are tons of works on Sartre purporting to unveil his thought and life. Most of the ones I've read are inadequate- they come off as hack-kneyed and reactionary, and try to compensate for their faults with an over-abundance of fruitless linguistic play that goes nowhere- does nothing, or they take him to task overly for a variety of his personal failings (and there are plenty from which to choose). Few thinkers and biographers attempt to tackle the man as a writer and an activist... Few try to work with Sartre's all-too-human imperfections and put them into context.

   ...And few see any kind of logic in Sarte's later years but Gerassi, because of his close involvement with both Sartre and De Beauvior, is able to show the heart and soul of the man at work, especially in his darker years (involvement with revolutionary Maoists and loss of his sight and mental faculties, most likely due to his extensive use of drugs, ampetamines, alchohol etc in his 30s and 40s)...

   Stil, Sartre is a writeer and thinker worth exploring, and he was one of the more interesting men of his time. If you are at all interested in learning more about this maddening intellectual of the 20th C- this is a fine place to start. Gerassi was chosen by sartre mainly because he was not an acolyte- he had his own opinions and had frequent arguments (some quite vitriolic) with J.P. A couple of which gerassi recounts.

   The book has a lot of meat. Most don't. Let me reiterate that is written cearly and concisely- a quality MUCH LACKING in most books of this kind, and a quality that I value highly, outside of experimental fiction... I have read this a couple times, always enjoy it, find it interesting and illuminating.

   just one man's five cents, as always.

5 comments about Meditation.

1. This is a great item for someone practicing in Christianity to see the ties the Bible has to meditation - 12 step as well....



2. because I feel safer going into a meditation knowing God is my protector and nothing can harm me. Even if it sounds annoying to some who are not very religious (there is nothing wrong with that, whatever floats your boat), but it doesn't hurt to say a short prayer. The only thing I don't like about his tape is that the mediation is kind of short. Maybe because it's geared to beginners. But I definately would recommend this tape to anyone. I would also recommend, "Guided Meditations For Calmness, Awareness and love" by Bodhipaksa.



3. After going through this material in more detail I gained a greater appreciation of it. Not sure why I was so turned off at first by New Testament imagery since it is not that heavily used (probably says more about my background than the material itself :-) The discussion on chakra energy centers is truly excellent - one of the best I've heard/read. Unfortunately I still gag on the music which is a barrage of easy-listening drivel. Overall I recommend it to other beginning meditators although I think the material is better suited to text rather than audio format.



4. I was looking for a guided meditation tape/CD to help me fit some meditation and chakra tuning into my busy schedule. Bought the tape version of this CD because it was Edgar Cayce. On a positive note, it describes basic techniques, discusses the role of meditation in daily life and draws important distinctions between meditation and prayer. Also gives an interesting analysis of the Chakra system that's different from others I've heard. Unfortunately there is no guided meditation section anywhere in this tape. Other things I found distracting were the persistent use of Old Testament imagery and the incredibly lame musical score. I plan to transcribe the salient points into a notebook and go through the workbook excercises that come with the tape; however I don't plan to listen to to it in the future.

   I think my next purchase will be along the lines of a more traditional Eastern approach that's free of music or religious references since these can cause unexpected negative impressions.




5. This meditation tape really helps the beginner meditator. Not expecting one to have prior beliefs or religious convictions (though Cayce himself was a devout Christian and read the bible once for every year of his life), you can really benifit from this tape in amazing personal ways

No comments about Visible Spaces: Hannah Arendt and the German-Jewish Experience (Johns Hopkins Jewish Studies).

2 comments about Great Souls: Six Who Changed a Century.

1. The brilliance, charm and compassion of David Aikman shows clearly in his narratives of these bigger that life individuals who have left their mark on the world.
   The writing is compelling...the reader is drawn into the text as if he/she were present at the time.
   The moral is of course that the only thing that matter in this life is GOD.



2. very interesting biographies of wonderful people. i give this book as a high school graduation present in hopes that the recipient will become a great soul

2 comments about The Diary Of Soren Kierkegaard.

1. Well it isn't really a diary. It's more like reading his philosophy, but more intimate. Even though I like his philosophy, I preferred this the most. In this, he doesn't make subtle hints about his father and Regine. He completely bares his relationship with them and it's rather heartbreaking. Also
   Kierkegaard has a fresh sarcastic wit that I wasn't expecting.



2. This highly condnsed anthology of some of SK's journey entries provides a good overview of many of the key events which shaped his life, as well as his own reflections about these events. Worth reading in conjunction with other works.

2 comments about Ludwig Wittgenstein: There Where You Are Not.

1. I bought this book based upon the one review on this page. It IS "a joy" for Wittgenstein fans, but it is a 4 star joy at best. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I have the book, and it's a good one for those who can never get enough of Wittgenstein. I'll give you a picture of what you get for your money. The first, large section (90 pages) consists of a biographical outline of Wittgenstein's life by Michael Nedo with black and white photographs of W., his relatives and friends, the places he lived, his bed, his manuscript cabinet, his postcards, pages of his writing, even his military i.d. card - all interesting hagiographical stuff. (Here I place the 4 star rather than 5 because I wish all of the pictures had been larger.) The next section consists of romantic, sometimes impressionistic landscape photographs (5.5x6.5) of the great glen of Skjolden, Norway by Guy Moreton, a place where Wittgenstein walked and "did philosophy." The last section is a good poem by Alec Finlay called "The Wittgenstein house (Skjolden)."
   It's a well constructed book about 8.5x11 with a thick cover and very heavy pages glued to the spine, but it seems sturdy enough for years of enjoyment.



2. If you've read Monk's biography, this is a useful addition to understanding Wittgenstien and his motivations/working style.
   
   It is hard to imagine getting much from the book if you don't know of Wittgenstein, it is not introduction
   
   But if you're familiar with him (use reading (or wanting to read) the Monk book as a useful indicator) -- it's a joy.

1 comments about Owl of Minerva A Memoir.

1. I believe that when the philosophical dust from the 20th century finally settles, Mary Midgley will be regarded as among the more important philosophical writers (not just professors of philosophy) of the latter portion of the century. She wrote polemically but perspicaciously about animal rights, as in her work BEAST AND MAN, on many scientific questions (as in her work THE MYTHS WE LIVE BY), and on numerous other subjects.
   
   Her autobiography contains fascinating portraits of her family, such as her husband, Geoffrey, who was an inspiring teacher, and her famous friends, such as Iris Murdoch and Elizabeth Anscombe, but many readers will perhaps find most interesting her comments on the philosophical luminaries she encountered, such as Wittgeinstein, whose inimitable philosophical manner she describes thus:
   
   **
   The extraordinary thing about Wittgenstein is that he succeeded in making crucial things clear in philosophy in spite of his fearful communication difficulties. These difficulties seem to have been more or less of the kind that is now discussed under the heading of Aspberger's Syndrome, and though such classifications can be slick and misleading, I think the central point does seem right. There was surely a kind of emotional remoteness that shut him off in many ways from those around him. But perhaps it was the terror induced by that very sense of remoteness that made him able to stress our social nature so powerfully. Having been very close to real solipsism he rebounded from it with tremendous violence. Thus he was able to break away from the conviction of individual isolation produced by [Descartes's] _Cogito_ and to replant us in our proper soil as social beings.
   **
   
   She also emphasizes that Wittgenstein's ideas about the world-beyond-language have eluded many of his interpreters:
   
   **
   . . . far from believing that everything outside science is nonsense, Wittgenstein himself thought (even then) that what could not be said was far more importannt than the relatively trifling things that were sayable. What lay beyond speech was, he said, the _mystical_, by which he did _not_ mean nonsense but the profound, the true stuff of our lives. . . of course the TRACTATUS is so obscurely written that there was nothing very surprising in its being misinterpreted. In fact, Wittgenstein might be said to have proved his own depressing proposition. The TRACTATUS, after all, was only words, and words alone, not fully back up by explanation in a suitable form of life, do indeed often prove inadequate for human communication.
   **
   
   Her descriptions of her philosophical life at the University of Reading make us consider the virtues of an earlier age, in which British philosophical discussion was not only the province of specialists in the Oxbridge constellation:
   
   **
   What did strike me was that it was possible to talk freely. Dons openly admitted that they were interested in subjects other than their own, and were willing to talk about them without looking round to see if the expert was going to confute them. If someone said, `That's really a biological question,' this did not lead to an anguish-ridden silence, but to finding a biologist at once and asking him about it. Nobody seemed frightened of having their reputation destroyed; nobody considered that a chance question over a coffee cup demanded an _ex cathedra_ pronouncement. The state of being unable to say or write anything for fear that one might get it slightly wrong was not common, and where it existed it was not held in honour. I cannot express how much I liked this. When I had anything to write, I began to be able to write it, and so to work my way past mistakes. For Oxford, though it has never managed to stop my mouth, had come very near to freezing up my pen.
   **
   
   In her book, Midgley details the puffed pretensions of some British philosophy dons, even as she relies on the idea of philosophical fear, which was first expressed by Iris Murdoch, to explain the character of some philosophers: "What is this philosopher afraid of?" Murdoch asked as she examined the works of 20th century philosophers. As Midgley writes:
   
   **
   It is indeed important to ask what any particular philosopher is afraid of. . . . what really frightened analytic philosophers was the danger of being though _weak_ -- vague, credulous, sentimental, superstitious or simply too wide in their sympathies. Unlike their forebears in William James's time, they were much more afraid of looking weak than they were of missing something unexpected and important. They were not at all afraid (on the other hand) of being thought too narrow. So they were happy to exclude all topics that could expose them to that central danger.
   **
   
   Her general comments on the narrowness of academe seem particularly apt at present:
   
   **
   In fact, the whole habit of dividing academic study into fixed disciplines is much more a matter of adminstrative convenience than of intellectual necessity. The ways in which subjects are divided often change and original thinkers constantly move between them. The demand for strict monoculture does not come from scholars (though any set of academics who are told that they constitute a centre of excellence will probably not reject the idea). The real demand for segregation comes from the administrators and, above all, from the accountants.
   **
   
   She also questions whether we are justified in espousing techno-optimism about the future:
   
   **
   Fantasies about the future therefore grow like mushrooms in our imaginations. At present, for many people these tend to take two forms. There are hopes concerned with technical miracles such as articial intelligence, space travel and genetic engineering. There are also economic hopes based on a faith in market forces.
   
   Both these kinds of proposal deal in means, not ends. They make no suggestion about what we should be trying to do, only about how cleverly we are going to do it. They aim to increase our power, not to make us use it differently. However, destruction being easier than construction, an increase in power can always do more harm than good unless real efforts are made to prevent its doing so. . . . We need somehow to get it into our heads that most of our troubles do not come from lack of power but from our own abuse of it.
   **
   
   Her excellent autobiography reveals that a productive philosophical life need not be expressed only in the writing of books and articles, and in discussions with professors of philosophy: Mary Midgley speaks to the philosophical impulse in each of us, and we may all benefit from listening to her.

No comments about David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature Volume 2: Editorial Material.

No comments about The One And the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin.

5 comments about Anti-Abortionist At Large: How To Argue Abortion Intelligently And Live To Tell About It.

1. I found this book to be extremely engaging, interesting, and substantive on the morality of abortion. Dennehy, a philosopher, writes for the general educated reader here, and the result is a very useful and practical book for those interested in the moral issues surrounding abortion. Dennehy presents strong and very clear philosophical (not religious) arguments against abortion, in addition to many great insights on the tactics of pro-abortionists for obfuscating the moral issues. He also replies to typical objections to his arguments with insight and clarity. There is much more besides this, including accounts of his many years debating abortion, and fascinating stories of how people have reacted to his arguments. I would recommend the book highly for all those who want a down to earth, and very clear, discussion of the arguments against abortion.



2. For Dennehy, "how to argue intelligently about abortion" means what can one realistically expect to accomplish before a live audience in the space of a lecture: give them the minimal number of ideas that are necessary and sufficient to show the immorality of abortion. So he wisely explains how to argue that the mere probability that the fetus is a human being means that abortion implies a willingness to kill innocent human beings. The temptation is to try for more than that, which in that context would be self-defeating. The author's decision to write the book as an autobiographical account of "war stories" - against enemies on both sides of the abortion debate - makes the book down-to-earth, practical and an enjoyable read, despite his substantial academic credentials. Who says philosophers have their heads in the clouds?



3. This book is an adventure into what motivates, sustains, and illuminates the serious defender of innocent human lives, especially those tiny persons before birth.

   Philosophical insight marks every page of Dr. Dennehy's story of the conflict over legal abortion in the United States. It amounts to a history of the defense of human dignity and personhood over the past four decades.

   As someone with a background and experiences similar to Dennehy's over the same period of years, I can attest, from a mid-Westerner's perspective, to the validity and depth of his claims about the escapism and false rhetoric of the opponents of the right to life movement and about many other aspects of the struggle.

   His treatment of the abortion issue is developed in accord with classical natural law theory and is not an appeal to any particular religious belief. The book remarkably sets a calm, deliberate tone for the sincere seeker of truth, who will have little to do with sophistic, slick, emotional appeals.

   Anyone who is active in the pro-life/anti-abortion movement would find this book an absorbing and inspiring work of love and reason in the service of the truth. Those who are opposed to the anti-abortion position in the present debate will find, in Dennehy's dogged determination to clarify and illuminate the issues, grounds for increased respect for their opposition.

   The presentation is clear and engages the reader in his endeavor of refining common sense in order to discover meanings for defending babies who are the most defenseless of our human community.

   The title might bother pro-lifers. But the author, while he does not reject being called pro-life, likes to say in public that he is not pro-life, but anti-abortion. He calls the appellation short, clear, and emphatic. It gets attention and lets people know that he is dead set against the special evil of killing that abortion really is.

   Anti-Abortionist at Large is virtually a manual for speakers and advocates for the pre-birth child and the post-birth bearers of severe handicaps. Professor Dennehy constantly refers to his experiences, both positive and negative, in speaking before large groups. He conceives his book as an autobiography, an anecdotal history, a debate manual, and as a personal testament, in which he hopes to give witness to the gadfly of Athens, Socrates, by being the gadfly of the San Francisco Bay area.

   The work has been a long and lonely challenge, for the most part. And he speaks for many advocates when he says the silence from the Sunday pulpits has been "thunder in our ears."
   
   The author is quite conversant with the work of some of the bigger theorists of the abortion movement, such as Judith Jarvis Thompson, Marianne Warren, and Michael Tooley. He chooses to dramatize his debate experiences with Dr. Marianne Warren. He also offers tips on how to relate to the usual speaker-types from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, ACLU, and other such organizations.
   
   Many other aspects of pro-life, anti-abortion work are revealed. Dennehy became astute regarding the typical tactics of politicians as they dealt with the abortion issue and with pro-lifers. He gives examples of his efforts to write elected officials on the subject and compares it to fighting smog with a crowbar. Particular commentaries are included on the intransigence of legislators like Cranston and Edwards of California, and on the "demoralizing betrayal of Jesse Jackson." There are also bright spots, such as the courageous Presidential candidacy of pro-life advocate Ellen McCormack from New York.

   Various highlights and "lowlights" from the abortion struggles of the 60's and 70's are mentioned. Quite notable was the "landmark" editorial in the California Journal of Medicine (1970). Now called the Journal of Western Medicine, the editor wrote about "A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," remarkably claiming that the Judeo-Christian ethic was decaying and needed replacement. And, as I recall, the article admitted quite frankly that everyone knows human life begins at conception and that it was necessary to use rhetorical subterfuge in order to let people gradually become accustomed to the new ethic.

   He touches upon some of the critical legislative history of the year 1972, by which time the anti-abortion movement started to turn around the various legislatures. He mentions the overwhelming victories for the anti-abortion cause in the referenda that year held in North Dakota and Michigan. My recollection is that in 1972 not a single State fell for an abortion bill among the 33 States that entertained such legislation. Then the rug was pulled on the whole movement in January of 1973, when seven judges on the United States Supreme Court toppled the legal protection for pre-birth children throughout the nation.

   In the jaws of the holocaust that was unleashed, Dr. Dennehy patiently and persistently has continued to expose the deceptive messages that the abortion culture gives young people. In fact, he says that in his 36 years of debating abortion, he does not recall more than two who were willing, in any serious way, to address the fundamental question: Is the unborn baby a human being?

   The duplicity of the media is deftly dealt with, including observations such as how abortion proponents are being called "abortion rights" advocates in the same vein as one might refer to proponents of slavery as "slavery rights" advocates. He also duly notes the repressive behavior of the media in not showing photos and films of abortions, while indulging in many kinds of depiction of killing and mayhem in connection with warfare and street crime. And he cites various other ploys, conscious or unconscious, that serve to protect a "woman's right to choose" homicide for any one of her children at the peak of their vulnerability.

   In deeply regretting the violence of a small minority of so-called "pro-lifers" against abortionists and abortion centers, the author calmly notes that "respectable, law abiding" abortionists deliberately kill millions of innocent human beings, usually for profit. An abortionist today might be called a "good citizen," but, the author says, that it is not the same as being regarded as a "good human being," as Aristotle once observed and as the Nuremberg Court noted in 1946.

   In all of his speaking endeavors, Dennehy always tries to be sure that, after his presentation, the audience members never think the same way about abortion. He is determined to stay on message: Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being.

   Slowly but surely, this courageous speaker and author says, the trend in this country is going anti-abortion. But every day, week, month, and year thousands of babies die in the womb of a careless culture. People who care will want to read this book. It lays out a remarkably thoughtful path to peace with our most intimate neighbors-a path determined to end their silent screams.




4. This is unquestionably one of the most enlightening, unusual, thought-provoking and original books that I have read in years. With so much of the public abortion debate in the hands of our so called media experts and academic opinion-makers, Professor Dennehy's honest and moving account of his 30 year defense of innocent, unborn babies forces all of us to question the assumptions and lies we have so easily embraced concerning one of the central issues of our time. And Dennehy minces no words when he says that "abortion is the bone in the throat of contemporary American society that slavery was in the 19th century." What happens in the following 200 pages is a fascinating, sometimes humorous, disturbing, but ultimately inspiring account of one courageous man's efforts to defend not only the innocent, but the values at the core of any decent culture: compassion and humanity. Dennehy has the intellect of a Socrates, the wit of a Jay Leno, and the overhand right of a Rocky Marciano, but he speaks to us over coffee at the kitchen table. With all there is to learn in this book the one thing I came away with more than anything else is a realization of how thorough the pro-abortion movement has succeeded in portraying people like Professor Dennehy and the pro-life movement as a threat to society when in fact they are indeed among the most compassionate and humane of all. Indeed, we learn how sophisticated and clever those in the pro-abortion movement have been in deflecting a serious consideration of their pro-death and cold-hearted agenda. In fact, we learn that in 1963 Planned Parenthood's official pamphlet noted that "an abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun - birth control merely postpones the beginning of life." What happened in the last 40 years to transform Planned Parenthood from lovers of life into purveyors of death? How have they so easily convinced young women that their unborn babies are as disposable as a diaper? Why do they ignore the psychological effects that haunt these young women for years afterward? Professor Dennehy's fascinating and heart-pounding account of his years debating pro-abortion opponents in front of skeptical, sometimes hostile pro-abortion crowds at university campuses represents a college classroom in how to debate this issue with reason and honor in the face of overwhelming odds. It also represents a character study in courage and commitment. Chapter 7 on partial-birth abortion is one of the most shocking and moving essays I have ever read and it will bring any concerned reader to tears. Hopefully Professor Dennehy's inspirational book will seep into the fabric of our nation and warm enough hearts as well as convince enough minds, one by one, that yes, an unborn child is a human being.



5. A refreshing perspective on a complex and emotionally charged issue. The author walks the reader through the chronology of his career and life-long devotion to debating against abortion. Keeps the audience focused on the real issue of life and its unjust ending versus "choice" and emotion.