Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Reviews

Making the ideas stick, February 1, 2006
The 'Critique of Practical Reason' is the second volume in Immanuel Kant's major Critique project. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is considered one of the giants of philosophy, of his age or any other. It is largely this book that provides the foundation of this assessment. Whether one loves Kant or hates him (philosophically, that is), one cannot really ignore him; even when one isn't directly dealing with Kantian ideas, chances are great that Kant is made an impact.

Kant was a professor of philosophy in the German city of Konigsberg, where he spent his entire life and career. Kant had a very organised and clockwork life - his habits were so regular that it was considered that the people of Konigsberg could set their clocks by his walks. The same regularity was part of his publication history, until 1770, when Kant had a ten-year hiatus in publishing. This was largely because he was working on this book, the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. He then published this second installment, 'Critique of Practical Reason', seven years later.

Kant as a professor of philosophy was familiar with the Rationalists, such as Descartes, who founded the Enlightenment and in many ways started the phenomenon of modern philosophy. He was also familiar with the Empiricist school (John Locke and David Hume are perhaps the best known names in this), which challenged the rationalist framework. Between Leibniz' monads and Hume's development of Empiricism to its logical (and self-destructive) conclusion, coupled with the Romantic ideals typified by Rousseau, the philosophical edifice of the Enlightenment seemed about to topple.

The foundations of this text (a much briefer one than the first Critique) can be found in the short volume 'Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals'. Whereas 'Groundwork' sets out some short, basic principles, the Critique is a more synthetic text - it takes these principles and combines them with experiences, then presenting them 'as the structure of a peculiar cognitive faculty, in their natural combination.'

According to translator and scholar Lewis White Beck, this second Critique has two functions - it affirms concepts 'without which moral experience would be unintelligible or impossible' while it negates dogmatism and fanaticism that claims unique ultimate insight into metaphysical realities. Kant does make his argument for the existence of the immortal soul and for God in this volume, but these are considered lesser areas of Kant's competence. His discussion of freedom and autonomy, carried forward from his discussion in 'Groundwork', is much more studied and used in today's philosophical circles.

It's Too Good for Me to Read, October 11, 2010
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000JQUEUQ/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_img

This is one of the most important philosophy books ever written; unfortunately it is so dense that it is over the heads of most people. I'm one of them, and I have a Ph.D.(Doctor of Philosophy)degree in English. But I studied only the philosophy of creating and reading texts, rather than general philosophy. I can talk all day about deconstruction and semiotics, but don't expect me to understand Kant. (By the way, deconstruction is often used completely incorrectly, to prove things that just aren't true.) I find myself wondering how Kant would have made out in Van Vogt's Null-A universe. ... Read more

Editorial Review

By the author of the modern classic The Black Swan, this collection of aphorisms and meditations expresses his major ideas in ways you least expect.

The Bed of Procrustes takes its title from Greek mythology: the story of a man who made his visitors fit his bed to perfection by either stretching them or cutting their limbs. It represents Taleb’s view of modern civilization’s hubristic side effects—modifying humans to satisfy technology, blaming reality for not fitting economic models, inventing diseases to sell drugs, defining intelligence as what can be tested in a classroom, and convincing people that employment is not slavery.

Playful and irreverent, these aphorisms will surprise you by exposing self-delusions you have been living with but never recognized.

With a rare combination of pointed wit and potent wisdom, Taleb plows through human illusions, contrasting the classical values of courage, elegance, and erudition against the modern diseases of nerdiness, philistinism, and phoniness. ... Read more

Reviews

What's the rush? Slow down and think .....

An intriguing book based on an interesting thesis, well presented, in saying "we humans, facing limits of knowledge, and things we do not observe, the unseen and the unknown, resolve the tension by squeezing life and the world into crisp commoditized ideas ..."

"The person you are most afraid to contradict is yourself," Taleb begins, and shortly after continues, "to bankrupt a fool, give him information."

Okay, I declare bankruptcy. These aphorisms are an eloquent Luddite protest against the madcap technological excesses and follies of the modern world. I agree. Every new technology blossoms into excess, then retreats into practical use as newer ideas develop. Obsidian was once a new idea in cutting; but, anything this good soon evolved into ornaments and other impractical uses.

It's the inevitable fate of all new technology and all new ideas. All good ideas become complicated into absurdity, until wiser people ask, "Just what are we trying to accomplish here?"

Taleb is a wise man asking such questions, and this book is one of questions and relevant observations. It's the same question anyone with a cell phone and the choice of 250,000 apps might ask, like Taleb, "Why?" and the answer is "I dunno."

In brief, this is an eloquent plea to slow down and think.

What's missing is a recognition of human curiosity which creates all technology, from obsidian blades to Blackberrys. It's a book devoid of curiosity, of Rudyard Kipling's Five Faithful Serving Men and the journalist's eternal questions, "Who? What? Why? When? How?"

Of course, I'm not aware of the Luddites having many answers. But, Taleb, like those who sit and refuse to budge do serve to remind the rest of us that scurrying about accomplishes little. More power to him, and to those who ask, "Is this trip necessary?"

Now it is proven that you don't need to be dead to have people enjoy your aphorisms
I love this book. If you are a thinking businessman or academic, I think you will like it. The style is harsh, masculine, thoughtful, to the point, non-religious and timeless. The style reminds me a bit of Livingstone (Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart: Thirty True Things You Need to Know Now and Never Stop Dancing) even though he writes prose. The title of the book alludes to Greek mythology, but you don't need to know who Zeus was to enjoy the book. However, some people dislike the style of both Taleb and Livingstone, so the book is not for everyone. Finally, since the book is published this year (2010), you can utter some of the aphorisms out loud, causing the belief that you are a witty person :)

Potently distilled Taleb
I'm among those people who will read pretty much anything Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes, so I preordered this book without needing to know anything about its specifics. I just finished my first pass and am not disappointed (and will need to read the book again, probably many times).

We shouldn't make the mistake of getting so impressed that we're in danger of worshipping Taleb, and indeed some of his points may be exaggerated, inconsistent, partially wrong, or even completely wrong (I think he might even agree with that), but he's also genuinely and uniquely brilliant, and my sense is that he's right about most things and thus a source of valuable real-world insights.

Others have suggested that one shouldn't try to summarize Taleb, but we can surely say that his work revolves around the realization that we humans, both individually and collectively, are unknowingly prone to many kinds of errors and biases, so we need to develop practical tools to help compensate and especially to avoid disastrous consequences.

Using its densely aphoristic format, the book richly and wittily fleshes out this general idea by providing more specific insights on a wide array of "philosophical and practical" topics spanning much of the human condition. And I'll add that while Taleb seems ambivalent about Wittgenstein, I think his ideas are closer to those of the later Wittgenstein than he may realize (which I intend to be a compliment, while agreeing that Wittgenstein can sometimes be rather opaque).

If you're willing to take a serious look at yourself and the social world in which you're embedded, at risk of undermining some cherished illusions, this is a book not to be missed. Others have made many of the same points as Taleb but, to my knowledge, no one else writing today has done so with the same level of broad erudition and artistically powerful flair (hence his outlier level of readership and influence).

Excellent Book!
If you've read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's other books ("Fooled By Randomness" and "The Black Swan") then you have an idea of the power and magnificence contained in his writing. In my humble opinion, "The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms" is excellent; it's a must read. I have been anticipating this book's release for quite some time. Several months ago Taleb was testing out many of these aphorisms on Twitter, so it's interesting to see how the book came together. I certainly enjoy witty aphorisms and this book contains some of the best I've ever read.

"My best definition of a nerd: someone who asks you to explain an aphorism."

As Taleb says, aphorisms lose their charm whenever explained so I'll refrain from demonstrating my foolishness and ignorance by trying to interpret any of them in this forum.

Excellent-Nassim Nicholas Taleb at his best
My copy arrived today, and I was anxious to read Taleb's book of aphorisms after following his progress at his website. He does not disappoint; he will make many laugh, many angry, and most think. His wit and insight spares no one; particularly academics, economists, and bankers (politicians, too).

The chapter I most anticipated was Robustness and Fragility, given Taleb's continuing dialogue at Facebook concerning anti-fragility.

This slim volume is highly recommended if you enjoyed Fooled By Randomness and The Black Swan. Highest recommendation.

Sam Kinison of contemporary philosophy
Taleb is the Sam Kinison of contemporary philosophy: He shrieks mischievously about how we delude ourselves and allow others (e.g., consultants and intellectuals) to delude us. "The Bed of Procrutes" tells where not to look for answers and seems grounded in a profound respect for the ever-elusive: human dignity and courage. Unlike his seminal "The Black Swan," which overflowed with examples and explanations (and which should have been proofread more carefully) this book is spare and copy-edited. It is compulsory reading for the aspiring fl�neur.

Great encouragement to think more!
I'm a big Taleb fan, but this review is not biased. I enjoyed this book a lot. It's a quick read, but is intended to make the reader think. Highly recommend it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Definitive Indeed!
This new edition of the RTS is worth buying even if you already own an earlier edition. The editor has included important material on how this book was developed and interpreted.

As for the book itself, the Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans came to expect progress, and became impatient for faster progress. The liberal reforms of the 19th century delivered unprecedented economic progress. Much of this was directly due to scientific discovery. The role of free competition in promoting scientific discovery was less obvious. Europeans increasingly came to believe that scientific planning of society itself could accelerate greater progress.

Europeans also changed how they thought about equality and freedom. Insistence upon freedom from want displaced the yearning for freedom from coercion. Democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom. To Hayek, these were dangerous errors. Democracy could only work effectively in areas where agreement upon ultimate ends could be attained with little difficulty. A democratic government could enforce general rules of conduct that applied to all equally (i.e. free speech and free association). Democracy can never produce agreement over policies that affect specific economic results. One always gains at the expense of others in such matters. Such Economic planning places impossible demands upon democracy. This is because pursuit of specific ends requires timely and decisive action. Democracies move too slowly to attain specific ends, so arbitrary powers of government will grow. A planned economy will ultimately require acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers.

Some might say that these arguments are unduly pessimistic. Hayek points to the examples of Hitler and Stalin to support his case. Of course, these are worst case scenarios. Have not England, Sweden, and the US adopted large welfare-regulatory states without such tyranny? This is a fair point, yet we should remember two things. First, Hayek claimed that centralized control of the economy would destroy freedom ultimately, but gradually. Second, Western nations have not yet gone as far in planning their economies as did Russia and Germany in the 1930's. The fact that we have yet realized the horrible results of Stalinism implies neither that were are safe from despotism in the future, nor that our present situation is entirely satisfactory. One can easily argue that we have already started on the wrong path. For instance, Hayek's chapter on `The End of Truth' applies to modern political correctness.

Hayek wrote this book not only to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of planning and freedom. This was the start of his project concerning the abuse of reason. His warning is also about the tendency to overestimate the abilities of even the best and brightest individuals. Not even the best and brightest can comprehend modern societies. Socialists who favor comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended invites disaster.

The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of commercial society and limited government. The RTS also is where Hayek started his 'abuse of reason' project. To fully appreciate Hayek's genius in the RTS, one should read his subsequent books in this project- The Constitution of Liberty and Law Liberty and Legislation V1-3.

The RTS has its critics, mainly on the left. Due to its insightful nature the Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left. Leftists despise the RTS simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist or Marxist beliefs. Some serious scholars have attacked the RTS (i.e. Farrant and Levy) but their objections are misguided. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful. It offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation. Read it completely and repeatedly.

Ahead of his time
Over 30 years ago, when I was in graduate school, this book was nowhere to be found on any Political Science or Political Theory reading list. I suppose part of the reason was that once the Nazis and Fascists had been defeated, their ideas were no longer seen as important. The question then was whether or not Communism would succeed. Furthermore, then and now, many people in academia had no complaint about government power as long as their side holds the power.

Hayek skillfully deflates that delusion by showing how the very economic powers of government created by the Social Democrats were the powers the Nazis used to consolidate their power.

This book was published 64 years ago but is as timely today as it was then.

Too bad we aren't taking this advice
Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economist, wrote this brilliant classic as a critique of government intervention and manipulation in markets. I am neither an economist nor a political scientist, but I was led to this book after watching with horror the recent outrages that are consciously being inflicted on us by our elected officials, most recently the bailout and socialization of the two giant mortgage lenders, Freddie and Fannie. I couldn't remember that I ever received any share of the loot when those companies were making huge profits and their CEOs were earning tens of millions per year, but now I find that our elected officials have written a blank check in my name, the taxpayer, to bail out these companies' losses and stupidity, and then handed the check to a group of unelected officials (and, surprise, surprise, those two companies spend hundreds of millions on congressional lobbying). Privatize the gains, socialize the losses: sounds like a win-win situation for somebody.

This kind of disastrous socialism is exactly what Hayek critiques in devastating form in this book, specifically government control of the economy. Apparently, they say, this book has been very influential, but a layman could certainly never tell by looking around. Hayek was writing from the perspective of a central European who had recently witnessed first-hand the unfolding development of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, and he is warning that the exact same attitudes and policies that had been followed in Germany were uncritically being followed by the Allies, merely at a few years distance.

He begins by recollecting the ideals of old, classic liberalism, "the forgotten road". Of course, in Hayek's context, "liberal" means the true, historic liberalism of limited government, free markets, and private property, not "liberal" in the bastardized sense somehow hijacked by Leftists to mean unlimited government, socialized markets and massive forced wealth redistribution. He looks at the rise of collectivist thinking versus individual (it's all for the greater good); the problems of central planning in a democracy (someone in power makes the economic decisions for everybody else); the downfall of the Rule of Law (government is no longer bound by fixed rules announced beforehand but instead possesses arbitrary power limited only by its own discretion); the inextricable link between centralized economic planning and totalitarian regimes (if we're going to follow a plan, someone's got to force everyone to follow it); the problem of deciding how the society's production will be distributed; a chapter showing that "nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom" (Republicans apparently didn't get the memo); how in a socialized economy the worst individuals inevitably rise to the top (Really? Can it be? Obama and McCain?); the necessity of manipulating truth in a socialized society; and the fact that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of socialism and socialist ideology.

The relevance of the points enumerated above does not require comment. We are running madly down the road to serfdom, which is the road of socialism. Unfortunately for those of us who are being dragged along against our will, history is not neutral, and we will suffer the consequences of other peoples' decisions, just as the Jews in Germany did and the Russians in the Soviet Union did. Socialism has always led to poverty and oppression, and freedom, on the rare occasions it has been tried, has produced unparalleled prosperity. Hayek shows in detail why. We've decided to give socialism another try. God help us.

It will convert you into a libertarian
I read it at the University, here in Guatemala, where my University has a library that is called Ludwig Von Mises and the Auditorium's name is Friedrich Von Hayek.

Once you read this book, it is impossible not to believe in freedom and to know that freedom and big interventionist government are not compatible concepts.

The principles are so basic that you do not need to be an economist (I am not) to understand them. If people do not trust themselves to make decisions because "people are ignorant or greedy" then they will give someone else the power to decide for them (government) that is the road to serfdom. People will lose their freedom to decide which insurance, retirement plan or things to buy, which charity to help, these decisions will be made by powerful burocrats (that maybe who friends of someone in government) that will know what is best for you. Big taxes so government will decide better what do do with the money you earned.

I have seen my government follow all these steps that go to the road of serfdom and I have seen exactly the results Hayek points out, I have been seeing that happens for 20 years (since I read the book). The book is so logical that after reading, if you have common sense and do not have a burocratic position to defend, you will definitely become a libertarian.

True Liberty Is Not the Freedom to Take From Others...This Book Explains Why
This is a new version of "The Road To Serfdom." Although it is a classic, I had never read it until now. I appreciated the additional information about how it was developed and interpreted. I believe Hayek is brilliant in his perception of with is the big picture regarding the results of the various political philosophies. It is not any easy read, but it is worth reading.

Primarily this book explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe and extends it to an argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads eventually leads from socialism to totalitarianism.

While many think that socialist ideals are noble, those who implement socialism will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom of the poeple. Thus socialists must eventually choose a big central form of government that sets aside their egalitarian goals as it destroys individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans tried to accelerate greater progress and freedom from want by giving up individual freedom from coercion. Their form of democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom.

Hayek believes these were dangerous errors, especially for those countries like Germany and Russia, which ultimately required the acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers. The fact that other European countries have yet realized the horrible results of Nazism or Stalinism does not mean that they are safe from despotism in the future. It only says they are just moving toward it more slowly.

Hayek wrote this book to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of social planning and freedom. Socialists who favor big government and its comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended invites disaster.

I believe "The Road to Serfdom" is a profound defense of our U.S. Constitution and its form of limited government. Because of that I give it 5 stars. I can see why this book stands out as a true classic. It is both timeless and it offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation.

I also beleive it wakes people up and will get them to join the new American Revolution that the Tea Party started in order to take back the Government and make it responsible again. If you love America and want to see it continue to be free for your children, then I highly recommend you read this book ASAP.

A WORD OF CAUTION: If you read this book and begin speaking out or taking action to defend Liberty, there is a very high chance that those who embrace social governmental control (and the removal of our U.S. Constitutional rights) will become offended. And, because they don't have a regard for following laws (because they equate liberty with the freedom from moral discipline), they might try to accuse you of false wrong doing (i.e. lie about you and perhaps call you a racist) and otherwise try to harm your reputation.

Therefore, I would highly recommend getting another book called, Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Reputation on the Untamed Social Frontier. As a Patriot, it is inevitable that you will run across people who will try to ruin your online reputation (like they do to other conservatives). This book tells you exactly where to look for the problems that Liberals might cause for you and then how to repair them.

A major SOURCE (not always credited) for many of today's trendy writers
The Road to Serfdom by F.A.Hayek


(Note: I own and have READ this book) (...)

Short review: strongly recommended. A timeless classic. An analytic exposition of the same old re-cycled, cancerous, glib, smug nonsense that we hear endlessly repeated so often today. Namely that (yawn) Capitalism and the Free Market are unjust, inequitable, and dying anyway. No good has ever (EVER) come from rich, corrupt businessmen. They are exploiters and parasites. They need to be replaced by a benevolent, kind, compassionate 'planned' society. Administered by an Elite body of Federal Planners in Washington, who are wise and kind, (a tear trickles down our cheek), and who consist heavily of academics, intellectuals and Supreme Court Judges. We need more Government bodies, because they are fair, balanced, and wise. We need more rules, regulations, taxes and government inspectors to help business and private investment. (All kneel....)

A heavy read, requires concentration and dedication, and be prepared to look up many references. Some long paragraphs, some convoluted sentences, some ponderous pronunciations, but a work, written roughly between 1938 to 1944, which can be used as a stunning blue print to understand today's misleading representations by left wing extremists and political agitators. .What we see today in America is nothing new. The poorly read, uninformed, short sighted, activists, eager as ever to mount the barricades, but quite unwilling to sit, read, listen... and think.
It's the Old Marxist Brigade, the dreamers and the malcontents, revamped, with changed colors, new rhetoric, and lots of Utopian promises of 'free lunch' for all. In fact, they are intent on their own personal gain and self aggrandisement. Power politics as usual. Hayek foresaw it all, and described it for us in this incredibly clear sighted and clairvoyant work. This book has been an important inspirational source for many of today's more popular trendy conservative writers, although, so it seems, most will not admit to it. (With the exception of Mark Levin in his interesting "Liberty and Tyranny")

Long review: I like an author who entitles a chapter "Why the worst get on top" (chapter 10). I've often wondered the same thing. On page 160 he says: "There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society."
He then gives "three main reasons", which I suggest are well reasoned, well thought out, and ring remarkably true of today's self appointed saviours of the exploited masses. Check it out yourself.
I'll quote you part of his third reason:
"It seems almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of the enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task."
P.162: "Collectivism has no room for the wide humanitarianism of liberalism but only for the narrow particularism of the totalitarian."
Chapter 2 is called "The Great Utopia", and if you're a bit of a weathered cynic like me, you'll enjoy it. Page 77 contains the classic quote from Tocqueville "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".
On p. 78, Hayek says: "There can be no doubt that the promise of freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude..."
Chapter 11 is called "The End of Truth" and you have to smile. Maybe Hayek was a secret time traveler. Maybe he visited America in the year 2009. If he did, then he penned the opening paragraph of this chapter for Americans today. Read it, you might like it. He continues on page 172: "The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda....are of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth."
Chapter 13 is called "The Totalitarians in our Midst", and must have been written yesterday. It contains so many quotable quotes, I shall limit myself to two: "...there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler's book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes." (p.195)
Or how about this one, same page: "Individualism must come to an end absolutely. A system of regulations must be set up, the object of which is not the greater happiness of the individual.... but the strengthening of the organized unity of the state for the object of attaining the maximum degree of efficiency..."

This book is a classic. The introduction by Bruce Caldwell is detailed.
My two minor grumbles would be:
1) that some of the sentences are very long winded. Lots of clauses, juxtapositions, conditional statements. I read a lot, but I frequently found myself forced to re-read a sentence, and sometimes a whole paragraph. Hayek crams a lot into every word. Anybody who says this book is an 'easy read', with 'smooth prose' possesses a much higher IQ than I do.
I still can read any page in Hayek, and enjoy it. It's a rich offering.
2) So why in heck are there only 44 reviews so far of this masterpiece on Amazon? Many authors today, with over 1,000 reviews, widely feted with lots of rah-rah-rah and prime time hoopla-la-la, clearly show Hayek Road-to-Serfdom influence in their work. They don't always admit it.
For my money, THIS is a major source for many of today's writers. Yup, you have to work at Hayek. He's not easy. Roll up your sleeves. Take notes. You can't watch the 'Commie News network' (CNN) at the same time, do the crossword, and listen to your favorite rapper. But Hayek is overwhelmingly well worth every effort.
A truly great, gripping, far sighted classic.

The Road to Serfdom Revisited
This is Friedrich Hayek's magnum opus. It is so, however, not because it his most insightful, his most deep, or his most innovative book (his more specialized works in political philosophy and economics claim those titles), but because it is the opposite, that is, a general book, and because this is the kind of book that the world most needed then, and most desperately needs again now.

I say this because Professor Hayek's work is essentially a restatement of the age-old principles of classical liberalism, dating at least back to the Enlightenment, in light of the then seemingly insurmountable approach of socialism, which Hayek feared (rightly) would lead to a totalitarianism just as deadly as that of Nazi Germany. Hence Hayek's thesis is twofold: it is a warning against the path Great Britain was on at that time (which is a path well-trod by the twenty-first century), which Hayek believes leads to slavery, to misery, and to totalitarian control; at the same time, Hayek makes these critiques in light of the central tenets of old liberalism (to be clear to reviewers, this liberalism has nothing to do with modern day "liberalism") - free markets and individual liberty.

As for Hayek's analysis itself, it is nothing short of brilliant. Again, Hayek more meticulously works out the details of his political theory in works like the "Constitution of Liberty", but here he is at his best, providing the big picture of the threat of socialism, in all its guises, and what it represents to any country which values individual freedom. A number of chapters will seem prescient, such as "The End of Truth" (Orwell's 1984 clearly borrows from this), detailing how under a totalitarian regime, truth becomes a matter of utility for the ruler, a pliable tool rather than an objective goal to be sought and conformed to. Most scary, Hayek shows how this is partly accomplished by the manipulation of language.

There are two things, however, which make this book so accessible, and therefore serve as the quintessential introduction to classical liberal thought. First, it is remarkably conciliatory towards opponents. Hayek is not a firebrand or an ideologue, but an intellectual, who holds strong views, but knows and respects members of the opposite camp. Hence, he dedicates this book, "to socialists of all parties," and never lowers himself to the level of diatribe or rambling. His earnest goal is to open his readers' minds to ideals that are perishing, and he knows eristic does not accomplish that. This alone allows the book to stand in marked contrast to any contemporary book. Second, however, Hayek's book is still read because though the circumstances have changed, it is as relevant as though it were written yesterday. As Milton Friedman says in his introduction, during the first half of the twentieth century people praised socialism but practiced capitalism; today, we praise capitalism but practice socialism. We are moving, sluggishly it is true, but certainly nonetheless, down the same road that Hayek feared sixty-six years ago. We are traveling down the road to serfdom.

Do Not Stop Here!
This book has come across some recent popularity after Glenn Beck dedicated an entire show to this book.

I picked up this book a year and a half ago. It is truly a tremendous book, and one that provided me motivation to continue my studies at a fervent pace.

I suggest Glenn Beck fans should not stop here. The Austrian school is going to open your eyes. If you have not already, I highly suggest you begin to look into studying the many important works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. Rothbard particularly had a tremendous ability to make complex subjects simple and actually pleasurable, so fear not if you are at all turned off by studying economics. It is much too important to push aside. If you do not wish to buy the books, you can download e-books absolutely free on the Mises Institute website. Also, the site offers free articles, lectures, and audio downloads on subjects including economics, history, and libertarian thought.

Especially relevant in today's world
This book contains the most notable works of F.A. Hayek, the famed, Nobel-prize winning economist who explained yet again why democracies are best based on free market capitalism, and that socialism tends to lead to tyranny.

Hayek demonstrates how socialist governments, motivated by political considerations, can't help but interfere with markets. But economic principles are like the law of gravity...they can't be altered at the whim of a state bureaucrat, so government tampering usually results in cycles of clumsy tampering, suboptimal economic performance, financial crisis, and greater intervention. Hayek would argue for solutions based on individual freedoms while limiting government's ability to intervene in markets, but socialists see it differently. Instead, they demand greater and greater powers, claiming that only greater intervention can fix the problems their actions have caused. To the extent that people buy into this thinking and vote to grant governments ever more power, economic and personal liberties are surrendered, eventually resulting in tyranny and totalitarianism.

One of the other interesting points Hayek makes is that socialism and it's characteristic centrally planned economies tends to concentrate power in a small band of political elites. In this type of system, only the most corrupt and politically ruthless tend to advance, and over time it gets to be increasingly difficult to oppose them. Leaders, unable to offer real growth and prosperity, turn to things like thought (media) control and other nefarious means to stay in power and advance their socialist agendas.

It's also important to understand that this book, while scholarly, has its roots in a far more pragmatic and patriotic place. Written in 1944, Hayek and some of his peers were afraid that the drastic government market intervention surrounding WWII would be carried forward after the war, and the entire world would settle into a Soviet-style socialism. At the time, the Soviets were seen as successfully managing their economy through central planning, and socialism was the darling of intellectuals around the globe. Hayek, fearing this outcome, organized numerous meetings among the world's leading economic minds, and eventually, his book would have a dramatic impact on economic thinking for people in general as well as economists. Milton Friedman writes on this topic and it makes a fascinating read.

Although Hayek used Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for most of his examples, it's striking to see current events through the lens of this book, whether the mortgage lending crisis, AIG, GM, Cap and Trade, US health care system intervention and so on. Although few disagree with Hayek's principles, it is as though we need to relearn them every so often. Indeed, Hayek isn't the first (or last) to advocate these principles...Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and so on have been pointing the way for most of the last three centuries. Perhaps "Hope and Change" is just easier to believe in than sober, economic policies of individualism and personal freedom.

Very highly recommended and should be required reading for patriots and voters trying to make sense out of today's march towards socialism. ... Read more

Editorial Review

 
A black swan is an event, positive or negative, that is deemed improbable yet causes massive consequences. In this groundbreaking and prophetic book, Taleb shows in a playful way that Black Swan events explain almost everything about our world, and yet we—especially the experts—are blind to them. In this second edition, Taleb has added a new essay, On Robustness and Fragility, which offers tools to navigate and exploit a Black Swan world.



*2nd Edition, With a new essay: "On Robustness and Fragility" ... Read more

Reviews

Lost in Extremistan with nothing but a Bell Curve
If, as Socrates would have it, the only true knowledge is knowledge of one's own ignorance, then Nassim Nicholas Taleb is the world's greatest living teacher. In The Black Swan, Taleb's second book for laypeople, he gives a full treatment to concepts briefly explored in his first book "Fooled by Randomness." The Black Swan is basically a sequel to that book, but much more focused, detailed and scholarly. This is a book of serious philosophy that reads like a stand-up comedy routine. (Think Larry David...)

The Black Swan is probably the strongest statement of enlightened empiricism since Ernst Mach refused to acknowledge the existence of the atom. Of course, in theory, everyone today is supposed to be an empiricist - all right-thinking intellectuals claim to base their views solely on positive scientific observation. But very few sincerely confront the implications of rigorous empiricism. Specifically, few confront "the problem of induction," illustrated here by the story of the black swan.

Briefly: observing an event once does not predict it will occur again in the future. This remains true regardless of the number of observations one adds to the pile. Or, as Taleb, recapitulating David Hume, has it: the observation of even a million white swans does not justify the statement "all swans are white." There is no way to know that somewhere out there a black swan is not hiding, disproving the rule and nullifying our "knowledge" of swans. The problem of induction tells us that we cannot really learn from our experiences. It makes knowledge very problematic, if not impossible. And yet, humans do behave -almost without exception- as though they believe that experience teaches us lessons. This is forgivable; there is no better path to knowledge. But before proceeding, one must account for the limits that the problem of induction places on our claims to knowledge. And humans seem, at every turn, to lack this critical self-awareness.

In one of the many humorous anecdotes that seem to comprise this entire book, Taleb recounts how he learned his extreme skepticism from his first boss, a French gentleman trader who insisted that he should not worry about the fluctuating values of economic indicators. (Indeed, Taleb proudly declares that, to this day, he remains blissfully ignorant of supposedly crucial "indicators" like housing starts and consumer spending. This is a shocking statement from a guy whose day job is managing a hedge fund.) Even if these "common knowledge" indicators are predictive of anything (dubious - see above), they are useless to you because everyone else is already accounting for them. They are "white swans," or common sense. Regardless of their magnitude, white swans are basically irrelevant to the trader - they have already been impounded into the market. In this environment, one can only profitably concern oneself with those bets which others are systematically ignoring - bets on those highly unlikely, but highly consequential events that utterly defy the conventional wisdom. What Taleb ought to worry about, the Frenchman warned, was not the prospect of a quarter-percent rise in interest rates, but a plane hitting the World Trade Center!

Yep, the precise facts of 9-11 were actually presaged by this French gentlemen, as a rogue wave that just might be lurking over the horizon. And, to the contemporary American mind, this is THE quintessential Black Swan. Of course, the Frenchman's insight was just a coincidence - the thing with Black Swans is that they cannot be foreseen.

Taleb explains that conventional social scientists use induction to collect data, which is then plotted on the good old Gaussian bellcurve. With characteristic silliness, Taleb dubs the land of the bellcurve "Mediocristan" - and informs us that it is the natural habitat of the white swan. He contrasts Mediocristan with "Extremistan" - where chaos reigns, the wholly unexpected happens, power laws and fractal geometry apply and the bellcurve does not. Taleb's fictional/metaphorical 'stans' share something with the 'stans' of the real world: very ill-defined borders. Indeed, one can never tell whether one is in the relatively safe territory of Mediocristan or if one has wandered into the lawless tribal regions of Extremistan. The bellcurve can only help you in Mediocristan, but you have no way of knowing whether you have strayed into Extremistan - beyond the bellcurve's jurisdiction. This means that bellcurves are of no reliable use, anywhere. The full implications of this take a while to sink in, and are sure to cause huge controversy. In July, Taleb will debate Charles Murray (author of -what else?- the Bell Curve). I'll let you know who wins.

Taleb frames his whole argument much more entertainingly than I could here, and he bolsters it with an astonishing command of both cutting-edge social science and the entire history of philosophy. This is an astonishing work of serious philosophy, and it reads like pulp fiction. Readers who enjoyed FBR will find here the same dry wit, the same literary erudition, and deep sense of the absurd that made that book so much fun. But this is better, by an order of magnitude - easily the best book I have read in 5 years. I smell a timely pop-science bestseller here to rival Gladwell or Surowiecki, but this is also a classic that will be read for decades to come.

Many important ideas, many flaws that detract from the message
This is an entertaining and enlightening book, and fairly easy to read. It has an important message regarding how the world works; that the world is governed not by the predictable and the average, but by the random, the unknownable, the unpredictable -- big events or discoveries or unusual people that have big consequences. Change comes not uniformly but in unpredictable spurts. These are the Black Swans of the title: completedly unexpected and rare events or novel ideas or technologies that have a huge impact on the world. Indeed, Taleb argues that history itself is primarly driven by these Black Swans.

It is convincing argument, entertainingly presented with plenty of sarcasm, and indeed, anger, by Taleb. For example he rails against the academic community, economists (including specific names), and Nobel Prize committee. Considerable numbers of his arguments "ring true" to me, that is my experience in life confirms that they are more accurate than the traditional approach. Like any important work, 90% of what is in the book is not original; that does not make it less important. Taleb's contribution is in integrating the material together, and showing how these different ideas are tied to the Black Swan.

The themes include: winner-take-all phenonomen, numerous effects of randomness on the world, the invalidity of the Gaussian Bell Curve to most things in world, concepts of scalablity, numerous instabilities in the world, especially the modern world where information travels so quickly, the fallacies about people's inability to predict the future. The importance of these ideas, Taleb's ability to weave them together into a single theory, and the ability of this theory to change the way you look at the world, means the book easily deserves my highest recommendation.

However, the book does have many flaws, unfortunately -- unfortunate because I believe they will take away from the credibility of the message, which is in important one. The are numerous minor flaws such as, for example, the inexplicable invention of a fictional author (disclosed a few pages later), when certainly there must have been some real example that would have worked better. Another example is repeated jabs about the French; these may be amusing but I just don't think they have a place in work like this. There are also diatribes against specific people, including famous economists, which, though amusing, and possibly justified, demonstrate a high level of anger by author and take away from his credibility. Often he also overreaches, for example in saying the usual combination of anti-abortion and pro-death penalty or the opposite combined views of pro-abortion and anti-death penatly cannot be explained logically, when in fact widely known theories such as George Lakoff's (in Moral Politics) have explained hows these groups of views are entirely consistent.

Another flaw is that Taleb seems to go a little toward the extreme of saying that we can predict almost nothing about the future, and though he does not say so explicitly, this seems to imply we have no moral responsibility to the future. This, combined with Taleb's advice to the reader about their behavior based on the "Black Swan" view of world just rubbed me the wrong way, for several reasons. One is that Taleb personally has very little in common with most people; never having as far as I know had a regular career (essentially what he calls non-scalable, e.g. dentist, engineer, baker) he nevertheless recommends that people choose these kinds of careers rather than a scalable career (e.g. financial trader, author, actor which are subject to a few lucky successful people and a lot of failures). This advise is odd first because Taleb is in a non-scalable profession (derivatives trader, then hedge fund manager) -- indeed it appears he is quite wealthy. Even more odd because he says all these types of non-scalable types of work are boring and evens makes sarcastic comments (the book is extremely sarcasm heavy) for example about dentists being able to do well by diligently drilling teeth for 30 years. The second things that bothered me is that Taleb seems be somewhat amoral to me; in this type of book where plenty of his own emotions come through, plenty of his personality, he has plenty of criticism of others for their wrong models and wrong view of the world, and how this has hurt the world, but there remains a lack of moral responsibility to his advice.

Perhaps the best comparison I could make are to other important works that do not suffer from these flaws, for example the Age of Fallibility by George Soros and Irrational Exuberance by Robert Shiller (1st and 2nd editions). But probably Black Swan will sell better than either of these because of it's "edginess," i.e. aggresiveness; I personally have a distaste for this approach.

Despite my criticisms, the main ideas of the book as so important as to merit reading and indeed great consideration. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to nonbelieving scientists—agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to "respect" the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors.In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a "moral landscape." Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of "morality"; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible. Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

... Read more

Reviews

A Provocative Feast, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris seems to have a knack for staying on the cutting edge of the religious debates. His first book, "The End of Faith," ignited the so-called New Atheist movement. Now after several years and after earning a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA Harris returns igniting a new debate, this time about the moral landscape of our world. People have been arguing back and forth whether there was anything new in the so-called New Atheist movement. But if this book counts as part of that movement then Harris does succeed in bringing something new to the table.

Theists like to remind atheists of the old days, the days of Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre, the so-called robust atheists of the past who didn't think there could be an objective morality for us all. Now with this book there is truly a new atheism, one that affirms an objective morality based in the sciences. And it will be hotly contested by both sides.

In this book Sam Harris admirably attempts to steer between a moral absolutism that has answers to most moral questions and a relativism that has nothing objective to say about them. For him moral facts exist, but relativism is false. For him the answers to moral questions do not come from religion, which can and does produce more harm than good, but from science, which helps us understand what makes for human flourishing. Science should be able to tell us in principle how we ought to live our lives.

Given that our experience is constrained by the laws of the universe, Harris argues there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move up to the peaks of this moral landscape, toward greater happiness.

According to Harris there can be no such thing as Muslim algebra or Christian neuroscience so also there can be no religion specific morality.

While there are conflicting moral claims that might never be solved, most moral issues are not like this, he argues. For if we could eliminate "war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse," etc. this would provide for human flourishing and be morally good for everyone.

He argues that at bottom moral questions are about neurology, biology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

According to Harris: "It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values--allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals--is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do."

I hope his argument succeeds. It should. He argues for it in a masterful way.

Though I agree with many of Sam Harris's views on religion, I was expecting a book on "how science can determine human values.", November 9, 2010
Before I begin, and hopefully before people reflexively click the "no" for review helpfulness, simply because I did not assign five stars to this book, allow me to get a few things out of the way:

1. Like Sam Harris, I reject supernatural claims.
2. I agree with most statements Harris makes in the book regarding morality and well-being, especially the evolutionary origins of morality.
3. I agree that science has a part to play in the study of morality, and can provide information to help in moral decisions.
4. I am neither a moral relativist, nor a postmodernist, so I agree that morality is not infinitely relative across cultures.
5. There are several serious problems throughout this book, many of which may cause negative associations with nontheistic views or people.
6. When one argues against freethought or freedom of/from religion, one produces arguments that can be used against oneself. I can well imagine some of the famous freethinkers flinching at portions of this book.

Now, the title of this book is "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values," which implies that the book will demonstrate how *science* can *determine* human values. I understand that in the U.S., the publishing industry occasionally re-titles a book in order to produce a sensation, improving sales, but causes unfortunate misunderstanding. This happened to Bart Ehrman, with the publishing of his bestselling book, "Misquoting Jesus." That was the title in the U.S., and was not the real title of the book, but was something he had no control over. The book was not about anyone misquoting Jesus.

I have to wonder if the same thing happened to Sam Harris, because this book is not about what the title suggests. How science can determine human values does not enter the picture. Harris does present opinions as to what is moral and what is not. He defines morality as being based on human well-being, which in turn depends on events in the brain and in the world. Notice that he has in effect given us the answer to what we must value, without science to back it up. I agree in principle, but I was under the impression that science was going to make the determinations, not Harris. Plus, human well-being, and what produces it, is likely not as clear-cut as Harris implies, but the frequency with which he uses terms like "clearly," as though all debate is superfluous, belies his confidence that he already has the answers.

However, on page 7, he does mention the somewhat relative nature of morality, though not to the extreme sense of postmodernist moral relativism. He suggests that the "moral landscape" may have many peaks, or more than one right answer for some questions. In this we can agree, and I appreciate his offering this particular opinion, though it is difficult to see his words on many other pages in agreement with pg 7.

Assuming morality is to be measured by well-being, are we considering only an individual's well-being, community well-being, national well-being, or planetary well-being? How do we measure human well-being against the well-being of other animals? How do we measure the well-being of one human against the well-being of another human (as these are frequently mutually exclusive, if one pays attention to the world around them)?

While I find myself agreeing with most of his arguments about what is best in regard to human well-being, I have to observe that he has not produced any significant science or reference to science done in regard to the majority of his arguments or why his definition of morality has been proven by science. Would it not be best to have that in hand before producing a book arguing for a scientific approach to morality, or at least before filling it to the brim with his judgments on what the answers will be once we evaluate moral questions scientifically? Throughout the book, he seems to know what evidence will be produced by scientific experiments before they have been done. He knows what science will deduce as moral when the question is put to it.

What tool is neuroscience primarily using for examining questions of brain activity at this point? fMRI, as far as I can tell, and that is what is used in any studies mentioned in the book. What does it measure? Blood flow (or blood oxygen levels) to areas of the brain. What does that mean? Generally, that those areas being suffused with higher blood flow (increased oxygen levels) are being used more. It does not tell us what is necessarily being thought, and can only suggest correlations to stimuli, but correlation does not imply causality. Harris mentions on pg 221, in footnote 17 for chapter 3, "fMRI may be blind to the difference between excitatory and inhibitory signals, as metabolism also increases with inhibition."

There is ambiguity in fMRI as a tool to evaluate the brain, which suggests it is a very blunt instrument, even having detected activity in the brain of a dead salmon (search fMRI salmon). From what I have read elsewhere from other neuroscientists, some have mentioned the possibility of a future discovery that fMRI has no more ability to produce reliable conclusions than phrenology, which was an enormous science in the 19th century, since discredited. (See also The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology).) However, fMRI surely has to be better than that, but as a relatively new technology, there is much work to be done before we have the confidence we need.

This is not to say that we will not be able to determine some things, but if one keeps in mind the complexity of many moral decisions, and considers what technology has to offer at the current time, I am quite skeptical that we will be getting clear answers as to what is best for well-being from evaluation of brain activity by fMRI.

When he sings the praises of possible future reliable lie detection (pp 134-136), in any setting, by hidden devices, it is positively Orwellian, not to mention possibly overconfident about the future technology. What have we learned about polygraph tests (even mentioned in the text)? The danger of lie detection lies in the lack of 100% accuracy (polygraph much less) and implication of innocents. At least Harris acknowledges this, but seems to be okay with a percentage of error, since we have a percentage of error now. He seems to imply we might have the ability to be monitored anywhere that we are, especially when truth matters most, like the courtroom or boardroom, but anywhere important conversations take place. "1984," anyone?

In the footnotes, at least he also mentions the shortcomings of current technology such as fMRI for accomplishing this. What he does not mention is the possibility that lying by genuine psychopaths may be not be detectable with this technology, and there will immediately be a black-market science within organized crime to circumvent the promise of guaranteed honesty. What can we surmise from those two strong possibilities? Perhaps we will unknowingly exonerate the ones we most wish to catch, but maybe it will help if we keep this in mind.

The attack on Francis Collins in the "religion" chapter is unnecessary, though I'm no fan of Collins. Anyone should agree that religion and science is not compatible, but I'm not entirely certain that prohibiting a Christian from taking the position at the NIH, purely on religious grounds, is "moral." It is clear that Sam Harris thinks that a scientist in that position must be required to be an Atheist. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I would bet that requirement would be unconstitutional, not to mention bigoted. If the religious views of Collins inhibits his performance for such a position, I would agree his appointment is inappropriate. Sam Harris writes as though he has no unsupported beliefs, himself. We know better than that.

He implies that Kenneth Miller and Andrew Brown (pg 173) "clearly feel that unjustified beliefs and disordered thinking should not be challenged as long as they are associated with a mainstream religion," but this is a straw man argument, as it is bigoted not because Harris criticized unreasonable thoughts or ideas, but because he is insinuating that a scientist that just happens to be wrong in some area of his thinking, even if it does not ultimately interfere with his job, does not deserve to have the job, because his thinking in all possible areas is not flawless -- because he is religious. Next, he may be suggesting (if he hasn't already) that Ph.D. candidates in any scientific field must be subject to a religious test before being awarded a Ph.D, and only awarding it if the scientist is an Atheist. One cannot have a thought-criminal be a scientist, and unless I misunderstand him, one day Harris hopes we have the technology to tell if you are committing a thought-crime.

I found myself irritated with the casual dismissal of the naturalistic fallacy delineated by David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, since it does not work with Harris's model. Hume's whole point is that you cannot tell what someone "ought" to do based on what "is." On pg 204, note 22 for chapter 1, he says we can just do away with the idea of "ought," then be left with scientific "cause and effect" telling us what we "should" do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "ought" and "should" are synonyms, and I do not see how "should" is more scientific than "ought."

I worried that with people like Pinker, Dawkins, and Krauss putting endorsements on this book, I must be entirely wrong, but I reread Krauss's endorsement carefully -- even he alludes to his disagreement, while praising Harris's rhetorical ability (a virtue in evidence throughout the book). Massimo Pigliucci, a scientist and philosopher with three Ph.D.'s, has some genuinely valid concerns about Harris's outlook on this subject. Pigliucci questions whether it would be moral to use corporal punishment on children if scientific data shows it to be beneficial. Elsewhere, Harris has said it would be, writing "I asked whether subjecting children to 'pain, violence, and public humiliation' leads to 'healthy emotional development and good behavior' (i.e. does it conduce to their general wellbeing and to the wellbeing of society). If it did, well then yes, I would admit that it was moral." Pigliucci said he would reject the data, based on his "moral intuition." (See links in first comment.) Perhaps Pigliucci is right that Harris should include philosophy with science in morality evaluation.

What if the burka is suggested by scientific experiments to increase or preserve well-being for more women than not in Muslim cultures? Will Harris also change his mind about the morality of forcing women to wear the burka? I agree with his assessment of the burka being immoral, but I have read statements by even American women that converted to Islam that they found the burka to be comforting and protective, so how could we expect the data to certainly show otherwise in Saudi Arabia? Certainly, the well-being of a Saudi woman not wearing a burka in public would be in question at this point, correct?

One last major concern I have is that it almost appears Harris has pursued a Ph.D. in neuroscience in order to use his "learning license" to pursue evidence against religion, and have a scientific platform from which to authoritatively argue the atheistic viewpoint -- somewhat like atheist evangelism. I hope that is not the case. There is a larger focus on criticizing religion in this book than any other subject, possibly with the exception of his focus on convincing us of contribution to well-being as the definition of morality. Once again, though I agree with most of his views on religion, I was expecting a book on science. I thought that was a reasonable expectation, as he has become a scientist since his last book publication, and the title implies that is his focus here.

This ultimately seems to be science through rhetoric -- an argument for science to explore what Harris defines as moral -- not for science to determine what is moral. Plus, he provides arguments about the lack of clearly delineated free will, but with no suggestions about how we decide morality if no one can help what they do. Maybe science, along with philosophy, will gradually shed light on some of the more complex questions.

It's the Beginning, not the End, of the Debate, October 5, 2010
Sam Harris has written a simple, yet extraordinarily powerful book about the "science of morality" and it is quite a revelation. He cuts through the cloudy thinking of religion and relativism to get at the heart of the problem: How do we as human beings maximize our well being?

Harris provides no hard and fast answers, he is attempting to lay the foundations here. He is not, like Moses, stumbling off Mt. Sinai with stone tablets emblazoned with the "truth," he is merely sketching out how we might orient ourselves to best tackle the mountain ourselves.

Refreshing and brilliant.

Interesting read, but very shoddy argumentation, October 14, 2010
First of all, I must say that I am a Sam Harris fan. I enjoyed his previous two books and really like his writing style, which is lucid, lively and engaging. Unfortunately, while the quality of Harris' prose in "The Moral Landscape" remains excellent, the same cannot be said of the quality of his reasoning.

In "The Moral Landscape", Sam Harris posits that there *are* objective moral values and they can be determined by science. Briefly, his argument is that morality should be defined as the well-being of conscious creatures, and since the question of what acts or situations will promote/undermine well-being is an empirical one, it is a question that science can (in principle) answer. This is an audacious thesis, and as reluctant moral skeptic who is constantly on the lookout for a convincing account of moral objectivity, I was excited to see whether Harris could support his claims.

However, I was sorely disappointed. Harris' argumentative technique consists primarily of making bare assertions or rhetorical statements. For example, he says things like "There is little doubt that well-being must include fairness, compassion, etc" or "It seems clear that whether a certain state of pleasure is 'good' has to do with whether it is conducive to well-being". Anyone familiar with argumentative writing would know that when a writer has to resort to bare claims about how "obvious" or "clear" a proposition is, he really doesn't have any support for that proposition at all.

In a similar vein, Harris rejects Hume's venerable is-ought distinction by insisting, "If this notion of 'ought' means anything we can possibly care about, it must translate into a concern about the actual or potential experience of conscious beings." He then summarily dismisses the views of people who disagree by asserting that they must be wrong, lying or not making sense! This is very poor argumentative technique indeed.

Harris is slightly more persuasive when he draws analogies between morality and science or medicine. He points out that science and medicine also rest on certain unsubstantiated premises - for example, science assumes that empirical evidence can be relied upon for determining truth, while medicine presupposes that "health" means a long life free of diseases. Yet nobody would say that science cannot discover objective facts, or that health cannot be studied scientifically. By the same token, the fact that one cannot prove that morality is about the well-being of conscious entities is not fatal to the scientific study of morality.

However, upon closer scrutiny, one will find that Harris has ducked the issue altogether. The issue is not whether morality can be studied scientifically, once we accept the premise that morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures. Rather, the issue is whether science can determine what morality consists of *in the first place*. In other words, the question is not, "Can science tell us how to achieve X, assuming that X is moral/desirable/valuable?" Instead, the question is, "Can science determine *whether* X is moral/desirable/valuable?" While the subtitle of Harris' book suggests that he is addressing the latter question, his book is in fact concerned with the former.

In conclusion, Harris' book lacks logical rigour and fails to accomplish what it set out to achieve. Nevertheless, it is still a well-written, highly readable book that is informative and interesting, especially when it deals with the neuroscientific aspects of belief, free will and morality. In spite of its significant flaws, I would still recommend it to the average layperson who is interested in this subject area.

Science cannot answer moral questions, I'm afraid, November 12, 2010
[Below are some excerpts from a fuller review, currently in press in Skeptic magazine] Let me first begin by making clear that there is much about which Harris and I agree. We are both moral realists, i.e. we believe that moral questions do have non-arbitrary answers, though our realism is, as will be clear in a moment, of a very different nature. We both agree that religion has absolutely nothing to do with morality, though I don't think of it as "the root of all evil" either, to use Richard Dawkins' phrase, which Harris seems to endorse with glee throughout this (and his previous) book. Lastly, as an obvious corollary of our moral realism, both Harris and I think that moral relativism is a silly notion, and that it is in fact downright pernicious in its effects on individuals and society.

Here is where the two of us disagree: I do not think that science amounts to the sum total of rational inquiry (a position often referred to as scientism), which he seems to (implicitly) assume. I do think that science should inform the specifics of our ethical discussions, and hence is in an important sense pertinent to ethics, but I maintain that ethical questions are inherently philosophical in nature, not scientific. This is a problem, I think, because ignoring this distinction does a disservice to both science and philosophy. Finally, as a corollary of my rejection of scientism above, I do think that there are significant differences between science and philosophy, even though of course the demarcation line between the two is far from being sharp. Indeed, I think that a combination of these two disciplines -- which used to be called "scientia" (knowledge in the broadest possible sense) -- is our best hope for a more rational and compassionate humanity.

Harris undermines his own project in two footnotes tucked at the end of his book. In the second note to the Introduction, he acknowledges that he "do[es] not intend to make a hard distinction between `science' and other intellectual contexts in which we discuss `facts.'" But wait a minute! If that is the case, if we can define "science" as any type of rational-empirical inquiry into "facts" (the scare quotes are his) then we are talking about something that is not at all what most readers are likely to understand when they pick up a book with a subtitle that says "How Science Can Determine Human Values" (the italics are mine). One can reasonably smell a bait and switch here. Second, in the first footnote to chapter 1, Harris says: "Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy ... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like `metaethics,' `deontology,' ... directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe." That's it? The whole of the only field other than religion that has ever dealt with ethics is dismissed because Sam Harris finds it boring? Is that a fact or a value judgment, I wonder?

Harris' insistence on neurobiology becomes at times positively creepy, as in the section where he seems to relish the prospect of a neuro-scanning technology that will be able to tell us if anyone is lying, opening the prospect of a world where government (and corporations) will be able to enforce no-lie zones upon us. He writes: "Thereafter, civilized men and women might share a common presumption: that whenever important conversations are held, the truthfulness of all participants will be monitored. ... Many of us might no more feel deprived of the freedom to lie during a job interview or at a press conference than we currently feel deprived of the freedom to remove our pants in the supermarket." If these sentences do not conjure the specter of a really, really scary Big Brother in your mind, I suggest you get your own brain scanned for signs of sociopathology (or watch a good episode of Babylon 5).

In the end, I did not learn much about either science or ethics from reading Harris' book (though I am very clear on the fact that he really, really dislikes Francis Collins, the new director of the NIH). But at the same time I just happened to be reading Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? If you wish to understand ethics, do yourself a favor, and read Sandel instead, your time and money will be much better spent.

Unconvincing, October 27, 2010
Although I am a fan of Mr. Harris' prior two books, the subtitle of his latest book made me cringe. I came to it not expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. I noticed by the way that no philosopher endorsed it. At least there wasn't one on the dust jacket. I consider this latest work a philosophically naive attempt to defend hedonic utilitarianism( HU ), which BTW is what our country is founded on. A quick read of the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence confirms this: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' Hmm...apparently Jefferson didn't need neuroscience to write that sentence. If we as a society determine that the goal is to maximize our hedonic utility collectively, then I think science, and in this case neuroscience, can help make our decisions more informed. But the issue is a lot more complicated than that which is why I consider this lastest book naive.

I am sympathetic with his goal of securing the notion that we do not need a belief in god(s) or religion to live healthy, moral and fulfilling lives. I think he overreached himself however. I did not read anything in the book to change my mind that humans impute value. We do not discover it.

The other low starred reviews discuss many of the things I think are wrong with his position, let me just mention a few of my own.

First of all, there is the measurement problem. Utilititarianism has spawned a huge literature in economics none of which he has engaged with regarding measuring a person's utility function. Basically, it is considered impossible. Looking at a bunch of pretty colors in an fMRI machine doesn't help. Do we measure short term happiness or long term happiness. Do we take the average? Does it matter? Maybe short term equals long term. Harris's equivocations amount to not taking a stand. How is science going to determine the optimal ratio of short term pleasure versus long term pleasure? This is an intractable problem in principle. Those decisions require human non-scientific judgement.

Secondly, Mr. Harris assumes that there is an isomorphism between the brain states of the population that neuroscientists study and the general population. This means that one can extrapolate from a sample to the rest of the population. This ultimately means that the moral truths learned apply to the average human. Are you average? In so doing, he essentializes humans. He also neglects to discuss how learning plays into determining what behaviors create well-being. We've all had the experience of disliking something when we are young and then later on learning to find an activity pleasurable. Sex naturally comes to mind here. We can measure happiness he says. I can hear the board of ethicists now, 'Mr. Smith, we've discovered that 99.0% of the people aren't happy if they engage in this behavior, therefore it would be immoral for us to allow you to do it.' Also consider the Happy Slave thought experiment which highlights the distinction between subjective well-being and objective well-being. We all are taught to believe that enslaving another human being is immoral. But imagine for a moment a slave who is content and happy with their enslavement. Any other situation would be intolerable for the person and would decrease their well-being. We back this up with brain scans and find yes indeed this person would experience horrific pain if they were freed. Not allowing the slave to enjoy his well-being is to tell him what to VALUE ( he/she doesn't value primitive freedom ). Harris would respond like Socrates that this person acts out of ignorance and does not perceive their 'true' objective well-being. If they only knew the truth, they would understand that they could be so much happier if they were not a slave. ( Think also of the 'Story of O' here ). Of course, Mr. Harris and his team of fellow neuroscientists are ready to supply those objectively true values/morals...it also causes us so much pain to see you enslaved. Thereofore for our subjective well-being, and your objective well-being, you must be freed even if it doesn't enhance your subjective well-being. But Harris would say, we solved the hedonic calculus equations. This is moral truth.

So what are we to have then, a board of scientists who determine what the objectively true morals are? He dismisses the fascist implications of his position which are quite real. Many from my generation can remember how individuals wanting to leave the former Soviet Union were categorized as mentally ill by the government and incarcerated in mental hospitals. Why? No sane person would want to leave the 'worker's paradise'? What if science shows that people are happiest in a monogamist male-female relationship where the couple has sex at least once a week. Are we going to promote this as national policy? What about those who are not average and want to remain single or would like to be in a polyamorous group? He would say there are multiple peaks to the moral landscape, ie multiple ways of pursuing well-being that do not make others worse off in a Pareto optimal sense ( he seems unfamiliar with Pareto optimality however ). But multiple peaks seem to me to eviscerate the whole concept of moral truth. Who determines if some behavior is another peak and not a moral valley? Who detects shoddy science? Remember the eugenics movement in the US in the 1920s.


Consider another thought experiment: The allies have just taken Berlin at the end of WW2. A team of soldiers with medics rush into Hitler's bunker. You find him lying on the floor bleeding from a botched suicide attempt. Should you save his life? Why or Why not? I don't see how science would help us make this decision.

Thirdly, following in the venerable tradition of Aristotle, Mr. Harris assumes that morality and well-being are non-separable. However, it is very clear that they are and many philosophers would have a hard time accepting the idea that they are not. Basically separability means that it is logically possible for a person to have a fulfilling happy life without being moral and vice versa. Imagine for a moment a society that determines that acting in pornographic movies is immoral. Yet, you interview a sample of actors and find that they are living fulfilling happy lives and they could not imagine doing anything else. This would be an example of someone behaving immorally yet is happy. So it is logically possible. In my Happy Slave example, even though the slave was worse off morally, this fact alone does not tell us anything about the slave's well-being.

Harris says that people who find happiness while engaging in grossly immoral acts are brain damaged. This would seem reasonable for serial killers, etc, but at what point in the continuum does the person start to be considered brain damaged? This is yet again a decision where human's have to judge using non-science derived values.

In my view, he adds nothing to the debate. The book could have been more informed had he undertaken a closer reading of utility theory in economics. A wider reading in game theory would also been helpful as would a reading in biosemiotics ( ala Jesper Hoffmeyer ). Mr. Harris dismisses culture as if it is unimportant. Only science provides certainty to his mind. So if we want an independent morality that we can force religious people to adopt, then it must come from science. I don't agree. Humans have made moral progress without resorting to 'science' so-called. This is the whole enlightenment tradition. Humans create culture like beavers build dams. It is not mere culture, it the source and background of all meaningful signification. Most of our moral progress is from learning what doesn't work to enhance well-being. It is a fragile knowledge that depends on culture and not science. For example, women's rights depend on culture not science. If we find that a woman's brain turns the right colors in an fMRI machine when they have full reproductive rights, this does not tell us that they should have those rights. Only people VALUING those rights make them secure. The Liberal Arts are more vital today than ever. I would rather have a comparative literature or history graduate determining our society's moral truth any day over a neuroscientist.

I also found his folksy conservative morality offputting at times. Apparently the pair-bond male-female monogamous family is the paradigmatic family structure. Quoting from his shallow reading of Evolutionary Psychology, apparently we evolved to have women seek out high status males who strut and show off to win over females and provide them with resources. How very right wing Christian of him. However, there is a lot of evidence that this is a cultural adaptation subsequent to the agricultural revolution approx. 10,000 years ago...mere culture again.

No humans do not find or discover values just as we don't find or discover meaning. Humans create meaning and values. That's what we do. We can't hide behind science when we make decisions. It's called moral responsibility.

Ultimately what was the point of writing a book just to say what Mill said 100 years ago? Maximize individual autonomy and exercise your autonomy without causing harm to others. We don't need neuroscience to tell us that this can enhance well-being.

A Contribution to Consequentialism, Not a Panacea for Moral Philosophy, November 24, 2010
In this book, Sam Harris advocates for the relevance of science to moral judgments and moral decisions. Harris defines himself as a consequentialist or utilitarian moral theorist, and within that tradition in moral philosophy, the relevance of science to morality is not so controversial. If you can define "happiness" (or some other condition to be maximized), and you can adopt a definition of "maximized", and you can calculate the contribution of any act to what you've defined as happiness, you've provided at least a rudimentary method for determining the morality of those acts. And scientific research is certainly relevant to that determination, especially if you've defined "happiness" ("well-being" for Harris) in scientifically friendly terms. Harris does so, claiming that "well-being" has to do with the brain states of conscious creatures.

That's a coherent position to take. It's not without controversy or refinement. Figuring out what "maximize" means, for example, is pretty critical to whether or not we value equal distributions of happiness across a population or only the sum total. If only the sum total, then radically unequal distributions are morally superior so long as they sum out higher than more equal ones.

Harris knows about such problems. In fact, he discusses but takes no stand on the average vs. sum question in Chapter 2 of his book. Nor does he offer any sort of detailed guidance on how such a question would be settled scientifically, if he thinks that can be done.

Harris has less to say about debates between consequentialist moral theory and other main strains of thinking about what morality is. As he himself says, he is not going to provide any sort of strict definition for his key term "well-being", referring rather to an analogy to the term "health", in which numerous approaches to what is "healthy" can be mutually consistent without supposing that the term itself thereby becomes radically undetermined or meaningless. I think he's right about that. But it's exactly that indeterminateness that is the root of a great deal of philosophical debate about morality.

Philosophers sometimes distinguish three main branches in the history of moral philosophy. One is consequentialism, Harris' branch. Another is Kantian moral thought, in which it is not the consequences of an action that make it moral or immoral, but rather what Kant calls the "subjective principle of volition" behind the action -- we can call that the "intention" behind the action just for the sake of argument (but Kantians will howl). And the other is Aristotelian moral thought, based on the concept of virtue and the development and exercise of virtue in a life. Harris has little to say about either of those lines of thought, except to say that his notion of "well-being" is elastic enough to encompass whatever other people may mean when they talk about things like "duty" (a core Kantian term), "justice", etc.

Harris thinks, like some other consequentialists, that any validity those other strains of thought have can be captured within the consequentialist framework. After all, as Harris argues, if those things matter, they must matter because they contribute to someone's well-being. Sounds reasonable.

But I think that without more fully addressing those alternative strains of moral thought, Harris doesn't address some pretty central questions. For example, how much does the fact that I am the one causing pain or happiness for others count in my moral decisions as opposed to just anyone causing that same pain or happiness? If I were asked to fire an employee I manage, and I believe the firing to be unjust, should I refuse to do it, even though I know that if I do so, I will be fired for refusing, and the employee will be fired anyway? That's not a made-up case -- among others, that was Elliot Richardson's position, when his boss, Richard Nixon, ordered him to fire Archibald Cox. On one way of thinking about morality, my character (and my virtues) count centrally in the decision. On strict consequentialist grounds, it doesn't, except in so far as we can reconstruct my character in terms of "happiness" or "well-being", detouring around the central question of whether character in itself counts.

There are also more radical strains of thought. One that is particularly relevant to Harris' arguments, is that the moral autonomy of human beings extends to the very definition of well-being itself. Put in terms closer to Harris, what makes us happy is then something we can influence ourselves, by training, or by commitment, or other methods. At times, Harris seems to admit such possibilities (see his discussions in Chapter 2 of the faults in our moral intuitions and the possibility of training ourselves out of them, or his remarks there about how we might alter our moral perceptions with drug treatments). Should we train ourselves to value equality, so that we perceive our own well-being served by equality (with the resulting positive conscious brain states Harris associates with well-being)? Or conversely, should we train ourselves to value extreme distributions, finding satisfaction in the lives of others even if we can't achieve those heights ourselves? If so, then we might be able to increase our collective well-being by simply training ourselves to positively perceive a given state of affairs. Should we do that?

The opponents that Harris aims at are not alternative theories of morality per se, but rather religion and moral relativism. He thinks that many immoral acts and institutions are purportedly justified by religious belief, and he liberally cites the Taliban and Muslim extremism in general as examples. Then he decries modern liberals for shrinking back from moral judgment against those acts and institutions on relativist grounds.

Understood this way, as I said, I don't see that much to object to in Harris' claim that science can contribute to determining the moral value of actions, at least in consequentialist terms.

We could object that his sweep across "religion" makes little room for distinctions among fundamentalist believers and others. That's probably a topic better addressed in reference to his book on "The End of Faith" than this one. Chapters 3 and 4 of this book concentrate on "Belief" and "Religion", but I don't think that any of the claims in those chapters bear directly on unanswered questions relating to consequentialism and its alternatives.

We could also object to Harris' rhetoric -- his style is polemical, not academic. He seems to think that anybody who disagrees with him is an idiot or a fool.

For my part, I just don't think that he has solved the problems of moral philosophy, either the ones within his consequentialist branch or the ones between consequentialism and others strains of thought about what morality is. And I don't think that Harris has shown that those problems can be solved scientifically, if he intended to do so.

Philosophy, yes; Science? Hardly., November 26, 2010
I've enjoyed Sam Harris' wonderful writing since The End of Faith but I cannot recommend this book. It is certainly interesting as philosophy for those who like that sort of thing. But science? As far as I can ascertain Harris' claim that his proposed moral landscape is scientific is based on the fact the human actions take place in the real world, with real causes and effect and therefore since certain causes have certain effects, then the ones that cause goodness (wellness) can be determined in theory as can the ones that cause evil (harm). The whole thing is absurdly trivial and almost equivalent to the old theory that if we knew the velocity and position of every subatomic particle we could in theory foretell all events.

Worse than the triviality of the premise is the underlining tone that the concepts and morals that Harris likes also happen to be the ones that science will no doubt agree with. Again and again he presents arguments for maladaptive behavior and informs us that (without a doubt) that science will certainly tell us this behavior is contrary to human happiness. One can only assume this is based on his reasoning, not science; for Harris acknowledges this is a fledgling field and is merely suggesting what is possible in theory. Then how is it he knows the answers already?

Sorry Sam that is not science. It is philosophically reasoning. It is good reasoning; I certainly agree with your moral standpoints. Reason and logic are good guides. But that does not make your reasoning science. It reminds me of an old question: "How many legs would a donkey have if you called its' tail a leg?" Answer: "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg". Calling philosophy science does not make it science.

I've all ways maintained the greatest challenge to a scientist is knowing what questions need to be asked; that can be asked; and the should be asked. Just because something is phrased as a premise doesn't make it worth investigating: that's why there are thesis advisors. Sam is barking up a useless tree with this thesis. In a way the inability to understand what is a good scientific question and what isn't is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Sam is dangerously close on this one to the wrong side of the fence.

What it can teach us is trivial - even without using the proposed method Sam Harris and any other person can arrive at the same conclusions by reason alone. Nothing is illuminated, nothing gained. Science not only explains what we already know, it illuminates new vistas. What new insights could his moral landscape provide? What could falsify this theory? I wonder what moral belief that Harris finds repugnant would be "proven scientifically" useful for mankind's well being? I must assume none, from reading this. Just the fact that such an idea "happens" to coincide with exactly the views I hold before investigating it would have made me stop and realize I was engaging the useless practice of justifying my reasoning by bolstering it with the name of science. I would have stopped and used Feynmann's recommendation that one should bend over backward to state what is wrong with one's theory. None of that from Harris I am afraid.

Nothing new here really, just more philosophy. Good philosophy, but to paraphrase Shakespeare - I could eat all the science in this book on Good Friday and ne'er break my fast.

Food for thought, December 24, 2010
This book makes the case that morality can be objective, since there can be objective ways to work on making everyone as happy as possible, since happiness is a result of brain states that can be objectively and scientifically measured, described and altered. And, well, that's about it for the thesis, really. It's not about evolutionary reasons why we have ethics, although the topic does come up, so if that's what you thought the title meant, look elsewhere.

The first part of the book mostly tries to get this point across in differently phrased ways. Once I understood that Harris wasn't trying to present this system of metaethics as some sort of universal, scientific law (like the "law of moral right" thing you always used to see full-page ads for in Scientific American), but rather as a method to "maximize human well-being", I found his points made more sense. At some point, it really doesn't make sense to let people cause the suffering of other people simply because it's part of their culture, and while it is good to be objective and equal-minded when studying other cultures, that doesn't mean it's because cultures are inherently equally good at maximizing their constituents' happiness. However, the presentation of this thesis, rather than trying to provide positive evidence, says that if you disagree with the claim that the happiness of conscious beings is the most important thing in the universe, then you might as well close the book right now because there's just no reasoning with you. True, perhaps, but not very well supported.

After this, the book addresses a wide range of subjects, including a chapter on the nonexistence of free will that doesn't really link it to metaethics and seems a little out of place (it ends by saying that the illusion of free will is itself an illusion then just moves on to something unrelated in the next chapter) and a chapter largely dedicated to explaining why the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, is inconsistent in his view of the sources of knowledge for also being a born-again Christian. The point about science and religion not just being different "ways of knowing" is a relevant one, but it seems to focus almost entirely on Collins, and not just in an exemplary way. Harris wrote a scathing review of Collins' book "The Language of God" in 2006, so this isn't especially surprising, but the chapter reiterates a lot of points from that review.

I went to see Harris talk about the book in Seattle in October, and while the talk understandably reiterated a lot of points from the book, there were some interesting graphics that would have been quite useful in understanding the book. For example, a CGI picture of a landscape-graph-thing where the peaks represented points of high happiness and the valleys represented low happiness and equally high peaks represented different ways of going about the same happiness really helped illustrate the titular "Moral Landscape" concept. There was also a graphic of a long line with tons of red lines connecting parts of it that Harris noted was a graphic of the Bible's inconsistencies, which probably wasn't entirely on-topic but was informative nonetheless.

Overall, this book probably won't instantly convert you to ethical hedonism, but it is food for both thought and discussion on ways we can acknowledge which approaches to human happiness just don't really work.

Listen to or read this book now!, December 18, 2010
This book will undoubtedly go down in history as a sentinal piece of literature. Harris is extremely capable with the English language and introduces many ideas and arguments in this book that require quite a bit of thought to absorb. I started with the audiobook- though I will almost certainly buy the book after listening to the audiobook again. This one is a must read/listen.

Several small cautions for listeners of the audiobook however, just to temper ones expectations. First, I think he would have been better off to give the narration over to a professional reader rather than do it himself. I have heard Sam Harris give public speaches, and he is a fine speaker. However, he is a bit monotone here and at times comes across a little lifeless when it would seem to have been easy for him to be more energetic. Second, some of the material is so intellectually dense, so uterly profound, that you may find yourself stopping the tape just to ponder and think. Third, his overuse of "etc" is a bit maddening, but that's just my personal pet peeve. In spite of these comments, which represent exceptionally minor quibbles with a ground breaking book, I enjoyed it immensely.

Listen to or read this book!
... Read more

Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power in to forty-eight well explicated laws. As attention--grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. Some laws teach the need for prudence ("Law 1: Never Outshine the Master"), the virtue of stealth ("Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions"), and many demand the total absence of mercy ("Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally"), but like it or not, all have applications in real life. Illustrated through the tactics of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry Kissinger, P. T. Barnum, and other famous figures who have wielded--or been victimized by--power, these laws will fascinate any reader interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control. ... Read more

Reviews

Black/White/Gray, August 15, 2001
When it comes to morality and ethics, people are used to thinking in terms of black and white. Conversely, "The 48 Laws of Power" deals primarily with the gray areas. At the risk of sounding melodramatic and trite, I say that most of the Laws covered in this book can be used for great evil or for great good. It depends on the reader. There is really nothing wrong with most of the Laws per se.

Each Law comes with true stories from history about those who successfully observed it and those who foolishly or naively trangressed it. Robert Greene has an interpretation for each story. Though each Law is self-explanatory, Greene's explanations are not padding, fluff or stuffing to make the book longer. They actually give greater clarification and depth. Greene's insight even extends to crucial warnings about how the Laws could backfire.

There are two reasons to read this book:

1. For attack: To gain power, as have others who have carefully observed the Laws;

2. For defense: To be aware of ways that people may be trying to manipulate you.

As Johann von Goethe said (as quoted in "The 48 Laws of Power", of course): "The only means to gain one's ends with people are force and cunning. Love also, they say, but that is to wait for sunshine, and life needs every moment."

Those who say they have never used any of these laws are either being hypocritical--or lying.

Read in spirit of the "Screwtape Letters", March 15, 2004
In one's life, you're better off following the teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Buddha to gain long-term happiness. But the sad fact is, many people live by a very different set of rules, and while most of these folks eventually self-destruct, they can inflict severe damage on our personal and professional lives in the process.

48 Rules of Power is a good primer for learning how these people think. I've spotted a number of similar books in the Business section (like "Career Warfare" and classics like the "Art of War") of my local bookseller, but none put things quite as succinctly as this one. In today's predatory work culture, with good jobs (read: jobs that let you own a home and pay all the bills month to month with a little left over) becoming harder and harder to find, you almost certainly will be the target of these techniques at some point. A friend once made an innocent and extraordinarily minor faux pas at an office Christmas party, and had a homicidal CEO attempt to destroy his future using methods as varied as slander and identity theft, all done through middle manager proxies to keep his own hands clean. You need to read books like these to know how too many people at the top think. But don't live out some of these rules in real life (e.g., crush your enemy completely) - there'll always be someone who does it better, and you will get crushed. Martha Stewart got hers, so don't think you're going to smash people and live to tell the tale. Reality simply doesn't work that way - and even if you survive professionally, the spiritual rot and personal decay will leave you an isolated, paranoid wreck. Read this book in the spirit of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, in which a master demon gives advice to a protege on how to destroy mortals. Learn how to spot people who live like this - and then stay very, very far away. Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents but innocent as doves." This book, read in the right spirit, will help you with both.

Not bad, but not all that good either, September 4, 2001
This book is well-written and very nicely designed. Beyond that, it's hard to see what the fuss is about.

First of all, and on the one hand, the book isn't the torrent of Machiavellian amorality you may have been led to believe. The author does go out of his way to make it _sound_ as though he's presenting you with sophisticated, in-the-know, just-between-us-hardheaded-realists amoral guidance. But as a matter of fact almost every bit of this advice _could_ have been presented without offense to the most traditional of morality.

(For example, the law about letting other people do the work while you take the credit is made to sound worse than it really is. Sure, it admits of a "low" interpretation. But it's also, read slightly differently, a pretty apt description of what any good manager does.)

Second, and on the other hand, the advice isn't _that_ good; it's merely well-presented. How it works will depend on who follows it; as the old Chinese proverb has it, when the wrong person does the right thing, it's the wrong thing.

And that's why I have to deduct some stars from the book. For it seems to be designed to appeal precisely to the "wrong people."

Despite some sound advice, this book is aimed not at those who (like Socrates) share the power of reason with the gods, but at those who (like Ulysses) share it with the foxes. It seeks not to make you reasonable but to make you canny and cunning. And as a result, even when it advises you to do things that really do work out best for all concerned, it promotes an unhealthy sense that your best interests are at odds with nearly everyone else's. (And that the only reason for being helpful to other people is that it will advance your own cloak-and-dagger "career.")

No matter how helpful some of the advice may be, it's hard to get around the book's rather pompous conceit that the reader is learning the perennial secrets of crafty courtiers everywhere. Even if only by its tone, this volume will tend to turn the reader into a lean and hungry Cassius rather than a confident and competent Caesar.

In general the book does have some useful things to say about power and how to acquire and wield it. Unfortunately its approach will probably render the advice useless to the people who need it most. Readers who come to it for guidance will come away from it pretentiously self-absorbed if not downright narcissistic; the readers who can see through its Machiavellian posturing and recognize it for what it is will be the very readers who didn't need it in the first place.

Recommended only to readers who _aren't_ unhealthily fascinated by Sun-Tzu, Balthasar Gracian, and Michael Korda.

May be unethical, but it's true and it works, April 28, 2004
I am not earning over a million bucks a year so I might not be qualified to judge the value of the book. However, as somebody in his late thirties and always stuck in the middle of world class big corps, I can tell just knowing the laws can greatly improve your ability to defend against arrows shooting at your back.

For your easy reference, the laws are:-
1. Never outshine the master
2. Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies
3. Conceal your intentions
4. Always say less than necessary
5. So much depends on reputation - guard it with your life
6. Court attention at all cost
7. Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
8. Make other people come to use - use bait if necessary
9. Win thru your actions, neer thru argument
10. Infection: Avoid the unhappy and unlucky
11. Learn to keep people dependent on you
12. Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim
13. When asking for help, appeal to people's self interest, never to their mercy or gratitude
14. Pose as a friend, work as a spy
15. Crush your enemy totally
16. Use absence to increase respect and honor
17. Keep others in suspended terror: cultivate an air of unpredictability
18. Do not build fortresses to protect yourself - isolation is dangerous
19. Know who you are dealing with - do not offend the wrong person
20. Do not commit to anyone
21. Play a sucker to catch a sucker - seem dumber than your mark
22. Use the surrender tactic: transform weakness into power
23. Concentrate your forces
24. Play the perfect courtier
25. Re-create yourself
26. Keep your hands clean
27. Play on people's need to believe to create cultlike following
28. Enter action with boldness
29. Plan all the way to the end
30. Make your accomplishments seem effortless
31. Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal
32. Play to people's fantasies
33. Discover each man's thumbcrew
34. Be royal in your own fashion; act like a king to be treated like one
35. Master the art of timing
36. Disdain things you cannot have: ignoring them is the best revenge
37. Create compelling spectacles
38. Think as you like but behave like others
39. Stir up waters to catch fish
40. Despise the free lunch
41. Avoid stepping into a great man's shoes
42. Strike the shepherd and the sheep with scatter
43. Work on the hearts and minds of others
44. Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect
45. Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once
46. Never appear too perfect
47. Do not go past the mark you aimed for: in victory, learn when to stop
48. Assume formlessness

I hope you wont find the above "laws" too repugnant. Anyway, this book is well written with plenty of lively and interesting examples or stories. An excellent read for both leisure and self improvement, I must say. Highly recommended.

Interesting, but not "how to". Shows our Sore Spot, January 13, 2001
The most interesting thing about this book is not the book itself, but the reactions it excites. It has drawn an incredible number of reviewers, many of whom are very critical and emotional about it. Our culture has a sore spot where power is concerned, and this is a good illumination of it. As others have noted, the various laws are contradictory and inconsistent. The book openly admits this, by giving examples of "reversal". It would be nice if the book openly proclaimed that power and politics are all situational--And in fact this point is made in the book. But it probably wouldn't look enticing to potential buyers if they put it on the cover! The book does have some fascinating accounts of past experiences in it, and is interesting to read on that basis. I'm even willing to agree that carefully reading all these accounts of power-grabbing will probably help an avid powermonger become more aware of the dynamics of different situations. But it isn't going to make you into a Kennedyesque figure in and of itself (thank goodness!). The book is beautifully designed and laid out.

People...Grow Up, July 3, 2001
I have read the many reviews that criticize the 48 Laws as "Not Practical", "Dangerous" and "Shameless". What planet are you people from. I went to night school to get a college degree, I have followed my fathers advise and worked an honest days labor. I came in early and stayed late to get the job done. I have recieved great reviews and many promises of money and promotion. All for little. I noticed my peers, who were not as dedicated as I by their own admission, careers were moving along at the same pace as mine or faster. When I had enough, I began to talk to managers that I trusted and employees who have had success in career advancement. Guess what, their comments and advice were very similiar to many of the laws in this book.

This book is very "Practical" and, while I admit, practicing many of these laws would be "Dangerous" and "Shameless" to ignore that they are present in our every day lives is delusional.

It does not matter if you want to play the game or not, you are in it. You don't have to take a sword with you but for heavens sake at lest wear some armor. This book is that armor, to understand the 48 laws allows you to see the oppertunity/danger before it is to late. NO, I WILL NOT HURT PEOPLE FOR GAIN but I will no longer be used if I can help it.

THE 48 LAWS OF POWER: YOUR THINKING WILL NEVER REMAIN THE SAME, November 1, 2005
Read this book and your thinking will never remain the same. Drawing upon historic examples that portray man's journey through the ages as one long, unending quest to dominate his fellows, The 48 Laws of Power reads somewhat like a much expanded version of Machiavelli's The prince. Yet it carries a lot of its own originality - on many levels. One interesting, innovative feature of this book can be found in the numerous illustrations and anecdotes appearing along the page margins that the writer uses to buttress his points. Quite educative, they provided me an easy opportunity to browse through and be acquainted with fascinating classic literature from Aesop's Fables down to Sun Tzu's The Art of war.

Can we refer to the 48 Laws as success literature? Some of Robert Greene's advice seems innocent enough: Never outshine the master; win through your actions, never through argument; concentrate your forces; enter action with boldness. These are tips you would find in any self-help book that should put anyone on a stronger footing in the workplace with their boss, with colleagues, or even within the curious context of a romantic relationship.

But there is a darker, more sinister side to the 48 Laws, a side that appears to be responsible for all the notoriety that surrounds this book. There are laws which, seeming to controvert themselves in some instances, advocate underhandedness and the practice of outright evil in the pursuit of one's ambitions. Reading The 48 Laws awakens a moral conflict within us and presents two philosophies that attend the attainment of power - one inspired by goodness and the other governed by guile. But I think it all depends on the kind of success you seek. To those that would stoop to guile I would point out that Robert Greene has neglected to include what perhaps might have been the first law: All that goes around comes around; you reap what you sow.

On the other hand, some of these laws that appear to advocate evil - taken in the right context, they shed their malicious intent and turn out to be very helpful, well-meaning principles. For instance, I agree with the thought `So much depends on your reputation - guard it with you life'. But I think my reputation rests, more than anything, on my character and commitment to whatever I do, and it is along these lines I will seek to guard it. Also, when I think of `Make other people come to you - use bait if necessary', I tend to see it in the light of the principle that pronounces: The kind of person you are, to a large extent, determines the kind of people you will attract into your life. So I go about developing my `bait' - myself - in the best way I can. Fishing, as opposed to hunting, one success writer calls it.

An anecdote which fascinated me and which I kept returning to was one about Cosimo de Medici, the 15th Century Florentine banking magnate, who rode a mule instead of a horse and decidedly deferred to city officials, but effectively controlled government policy in Florence for decades. He spent a lot of his own funds on grandiose development projects across the city but preferred to live in a nondescript villa, and when he died asked to be buried in a simple tomb devoid of lavish ornamentation. Robert Greene uses Cosimo's example to illustrate a concept that is profound as it is though-provoking: the REALITY of power is much more important than the appearance of it. Unfortunately, most people tend to see it the other way.

On the whole, the 48 Laws awaken one to the on-going struggle for domination and control even in the most mundane transactions between humans. They insist that power is a reality, whether we like it or not. They impress upon us the thinking that, to survive in today's world, one has to become a man or woman of the world - at least, if not in one's actions, in one's awareness. For me, the 48 laws show one how to discern power-bids in relationships, how to read between the lines and scour the fine-print; how to recognize various inter-personal issues at stake in business and the workplace, navigating with panache and perceptiveness. They show one how to be `peaceful as a dove but wise as a serpent', how to `see the tricks coming', as another reviewer put it. Indeed, the 48 Laws seek to banish our innocence. And you'll agree...innocence, many times, can be a painful thing.

One meeeeellion dollars!, March 30, 2007
This is not a "how to" guide for world domination, which seems to have left some reviewers perplexed and/or disappointed. You can take the Laws and historical examples and apply them how you see fit, or you can use Mr. Green's book to help you better understand the motives of those around you and maybe dodge a bullet or two.

Defense, October 23, 2003
In some sense this book offended me. It is cold and ruthless and the opposite of an aloha spirit. However, it also prepared me. I am in business internationally and you meet a lot of sharks. It is important to understand the offensive mindset to fabricate a defense when needed. I just finished my second reading of the book and plan to read it yearly.

Terrific synopsis of the classic historical writings on power., September 15, 2006
This book is a no holds barred open discussion of raw power, entertainingly presented. It took me a little while to get over the almost completely amoral tone of the book, but I eventually got the sense that the amoral tone is there for a purpose: to clue you in to the fact that people who practice power at this level can often be completely amoral themselves. In that sense, the book truly gives the reader a sense of the mindset of those who will do anything to stay in power. There is a sense as one reviewer pointed out, that the book could have been written without this amoral tone, but then one would miss out on the opportunity of being immersed in its sense of amorality, which is an education in itself. Experiencing the amorality is a wakeup call that offers insight into how some of the world's ills have come to pass, though you may find yourself wanting to shower afterward. After reading it, you will definitely be more aware of the laws being played out on the world stage, and you will begin to recognize people in government who seem to be using it as a playbook. Some laws are even applicable in personal relationships...a scary thought.

By reading this, you will get an overview of the major philosophical writings on power, who as sources likely include at the very least Machiavelli, Han Fei Tzu, and Sun Tzu, though the authors do not identify the sources of the material for each law. This is one thing I wish they had done. That would have made it more useful to those wishing to put these laws and their development into some kind of historical framework. The authors have done a nice job however of blending together into one seamless volume the writings of these philosophers, whose works are also written in this amoral tone.

One of the most intriguing and worthwhile aspects of the book, are the many historical vignettes that the authors paint of how each law of power has been implemented, along with how failure to follow the law can be one's undoing. It is like two books in one in that sense. Not only do you get an understanding of raw power, but you get a very entertaining history lesson as well. The authors are also very careful to point out exceptions to the laws, and how they may backfire, making it read like a very thorough treatment of the subject for general readership.

One particularly interesting vignette has vivid application for our current situation in the war on terror, wherein we find ourselves exposed by going it alone without a substantial alliance while the rest of the world looks on. The vignette concerns a law which states that in seeking to increase power, let your rival do your fighting for you. The authors discuss how Mao Tse Tung suggested he and his rival Chiang Kai Shek set aside their differences and form an alliance in order to defeat the Japanese in World War II. Chiang Kai Shek agreed. Mao then suggested Chiang send his army in first, promising that he would follow Chiang into action by sending his army in as replacements. Once Chiang Kai Shek's army was committed, Mao held his army in abeyance and let Chiang Kai Shek take a beating. Then when Chiang's army was weakened, Mao's army was able to defeat him and exile him to Taiwan.

The warning for our own national campaign in the war on terror is that hopefully we will not allow ourselves to dissipate our national resources and become foolishly weakened by going it alone at the same time as other rival countries are growing stronger at our expense. The grandiosity of thinking we can go it alone makes us vulnerable to even more severe threats by potentially predatory nations who pretend to be sympathetic now, but who secretly revel in watching us deplete our national will, our troops and our treasury.

"The 48 Laws of Power" is a fascinating read, though except for a few of the laws, I can't imagine how it could actually help the average person's career unless you were a political operative or someone who had already accumulated a lot of political power and were predisposed to bend towards the amoral. But to build background knowledge and be able to recognize shadowy abuses of power while learning a little interesting history, I heartily recommend it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Millions of people are searching for secrets,wisdom, knowledge, and practical techniques to heal, rejuvenate, prolong life, and move toward immortality. The way to accomplish all of these is to reach and meld with Tao.

This book, the successor to Tao I: The Way of All Life, reveals the highest secrets and most powerful practical techniques for the Tao journey, which includes one’s physical healing and rejuvenation journey and one’s entire spiritual journey. Its essence can be summarized in one sentence:

Jin Dan Da Tao Xiu Lian is the way to heal, rejuvenate, prolong life, and move in the direction of immortality.

Shou Yi Yan Jin Ye is the most important daily practice for reaching Tao. “Shou yi” means focus on the Jin Dan area below the navel. “Yan jin ye” means swallow Heaven’s sacred liquid and Mother Earth’s sacred liquid.

Tao II: The Way of Healing, Rejuvenation, Longevity, and Immortality explains the significance of this highest secret and exactly how to do it. It gives you the sacred key for your whole life’s practice and shares two hundred and twenty sacred phrases that include not only profound sacred wisdom but also additional simple and practical techniques.

Practice. Practice. Practice.

Reach fan lao huan tong, which is to transform old age to the health and purity of the baby state.

Prolong life.

The final goal is to reach immortality to be a better servant for humanity, Mother Earth, and all universes. ... Read more

Reviews

Simply amazing!, November 3, 2010
Reading Tao 2 was a big surprise. After reading Tao 1 I was a bit unsure if I would be able to follow the deep wisdom provided in Tao 2. But I am in awe, the wisdom is even easier to understand but still on a deeper level! Every sentence brings you deeper wisdom from the Divine, from the Tao. And I simply love the new Tao song! Words simply are not enough to share my experience. Try it for yourself! It is such a small price and the book with the free CD brings to you sooo much for it! I cannot thank Master Sha and the Divine enough!

Tao II: Another Instant Classic, November 28, 2010
The "Tao II" book is another instant classic by Dr. and Master Zhi Gang Sha. In this book, Master Sha reveals "Jin Dan Da Tao Xiu Lian" (The Big Tao Golden Light Ball Purification Practice) as the way to heal, rejuvenate, prolong life, and move in the direction of immortality.

Jin Dan Da Tao is the simplest, most powerful, and direct way to reach Tao. This practice gathers the jing (matter), qi (energy), shen (soul), xu (emptiness), Dao (complete emptiness) of everyone and everything to form and build the Jin Dan to heal, rejuvenate, prolong life, and move towards immortality. The Jin Dan is the greatest treasure of all life.

The serious practitioner will love this book. A new practitioner will love this book too. I know that what was written in this review might not make a lot of sense for people new to these teachings. That is okay. You just need to read this book. The wisdom is explained in a way that you can understand and learn easily. Then, practice by applying the techniques. You will believe more and more as you progress and experience the results on your healing and soul journey.

(Note: I also recommend "Tao I: The Way of All Life" by Master Sha to be read and practiced too.)

The Impossible Is Possible, The Unimaginable Is Real, November 8, 2010
I really cannot say more than the title of my review. Do you want to heal completely, and heal not only your physical body, but also your emotional, mental and spiritual bodies? Do you want to rejuvenate and have a long, long healthy and vibrant life? Do you want to be a better servant for humanity, Mother Earth and beyond? You can, you can and you can! Read this book to learn the simplest and best way how - and for much, much more. The ancient Taoist masters all wish they had the simplest teachings and practices revealed and freely shared by Dr. and Master Zhi Gang Sha, the purest of divine channels, vehicles and servants. Taste the pear: read the book, do the practices. You will know how sweet it is!

The way of life is given here for everyone, November 28, 2010
Dear everyone i have waited for all lifetimes to reach a level of peace, stillness and love that separates any of my concerns about the life on Mother Earth. Life on Mother Earth is getting difficult. This book carries the essence of all life including health, energy, life transformation including finances and relationships. The truth is here in this book which will serve every aspect of your life. The way of all life presented in this book has been shared from the Divine to clarify the secrets from china, to add the wisdom of over 5000yrs of study & spiritual practises that has served millions of people in Asia. If you have tried any of the asian martial arts or chanting/meditations you will experience another level of energy vibration and frequency that will blow you away. Its heart touching for your soul. Its heart touching to the generosity of this Master & Dr Zhi Gang Sha. We are blessed that his heart is so open to share these secrets and practises to all humanity. We are blessed

The Title Says It All, November 28, 2010
Yes, you can definitely judge this book by its cover. The title says it all: Tao II: The Way of Healing, Rejuvenation, Longevity, and Immortality. This book delivers what the cover promises. If you have read spiritual classics like Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi and Spaulding's The Teachings of the Masters of the Far East, and Eva Wong's Tales of the Taoist Immortals, then you are familiar with the possibility of immortality. What this book presents is the Way of immortality for folks like you and me. Incredible! Incredible becomes credible when you do the practices and meditations in this book. This is a treasure for humanity. This book opens a way of being on planet earth that blesses all souls. This books prepares one to be a better servant of all. Get this book. Use this book for healing...! Use this book for rejuvenation...! Use this book for longevity...! Use this book for immortality !...!...!

Wisdom of the Ages, November 25, 2010
It may 100 years before humanity realizes the depth and power of the wisdom revealed in the book TAO II. The teachings of this book are the equivelant of that of the I ching or the Tao de Ching when they where revealed to humanity centuries ago. Master Sha is a blessing to humanity and generations to come. Know that these words and all of his books are divnely guided wisdom. These wisdoms are experienced not understood. This is what seperates true wisdom from fake teachings. Experience the wisdoms for yourself and wrap your soul in the nectar of these soul empowering teachings. Hao

Wow! This is not only a book, this is so much more..., November 28, 2010
There is no other book on mother earth I know, which speaks from Longevity and Immortality much less describing in detail the way to come there. And there is no other book on mother earth I know containing not only sacred wisdom and knowledge for healing and rejuvenation but also Divine download treasures. I am very confident that everybody who is reading the book and doing the practices as recommended can also experience the power of this book like I did and still do. Therefore I can recommend this book from my heart to everybody who is interested on the highest levels of spiritual healing or is looking for rejuvenation, longevity or even immortality.

Simple but Profound, November 28, 2010
In Tao II, Dr. and Master Zhi Gang Sha has taken ancient esoteric teachings and made them accessible and understandable to everyone.Readers are guided step by step along the path to longevity and,if they are diligent and committed to the practices taught within the book,even immortality!

This seemingly simple book, is in fact very profound, in both its content and it's potential results. It's a treasure to humanity offering hope, healing and blessings to all who are called to read it and wise enough to heed it. I am very grateful to Master Sha for sharing these ancient sacred secrets with humanity at a time that it is most needed. I will read Tao II many times, to glean deeper levels of its wisdom.

Grateful for this Jewel, November 28, 2010
I am loving this book and will probably read it 40 more times before I feel I have truly fully absorbed the teachings. Simply because it is profound on so many levels. I love Jin Dan Da Tao Xiu Lian, the complete explanation written in English & Chinese & that there is a CD provided to teach pronunciation. Thank You Dr Sha for sharing this treasure with us.

When the Teacher Appears, Grab the Teacher!, December 5, 2010
When I chant the Sacred Text of the Tao of Healing, Rejuvenation, Longevity, and Immortality, I can feel changes taking place in my body on the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical levels. It's difficult to explain, but it's almost like a powerful force enters my body and begins to heal and change the vibrational frequency of my being. There is a feeling of being re-created. I have similar experiences as well with doing the other practices in the book.

Based on these experiences, I would have to conclude that the wisdom and power here are truly authentic. These are very exciting times, to be able to have access to wisdom, knowledge and practices that can bring about the kind of life-transformation that so many rarely even dream of. I feel in my heart I have found the right teacher and the right book. Thank you, Master Sha. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Read the Reviews!, October 28, 2006
I've just finished reading the 141 reviews above mine, and I think they're utterly fascinating--almost as interesting as the book. And the scores--the numbers who find each review helpful--are equally remarkable.

Some reviewers, delighted to find their opinions supported by Dawkins, use the opportunity to bask in their superior intellects and display their generous contempt for those who disagree.

Other reviewers feel personally attacked by this book, fending it off as best they can so they can retain their illusions, which are obviously valuable and meaningful to them.

Actually, you don't even have to read the reviews to see which is which. Just look at the numbers. If you see very few finding the review useful, you'll know the review was written by someone opposing Dawkins' ideas. And if the majority find the review helpful, that means it agrees with Dawkins.

This tells me that most of the people who are bothering to read the reviews are already pro-Dawkins--and it bodes ill for his hopes that his book will convert the believers.

It won't convert many believers, not because it is wrong--it isn't--and not because it isn't well-written--it is--but because whatever else you can say about faith, it isn't easily extinguished. For those who have it, it is the only life raft on a limitless ocean. Those who don't have learned how to swim, or plan to.

The most annoying reviewers, from my point of view, are those whose remarks demonstrate they haven't read the book (such as the fellow who insists Einstein was a believer), or those who feel Dawkins doesn't have the Biblical knowledge to back up his conclusions.

He doesn't need any Biblical knowledge. None of us do, when it comes to the question of belief. Memorizing the Bible neither adds nor subtracts from our ability to feel faith.

And that's the bottom line for me. I am unable to accept an assertion of any kind supported by nothing more than faith. I need some kind of truth, some kind of evidence.

There are or might be moments when I am jealous of those capable of faith. I would love to believe, when a loved one dies, that he or she is going to a better place and that we'll meet again some day. What a lovely, comforting thought. Would that it were true, or that I could believe it. But I don't--and it makes this life and every moment in it more valuable to me.

I once asked myself how a person totally unfamiliar with religion, might choose among the world's offerings, might decide to adopt one of the world's thousands of religions. I could find no way. They all claim they're right and all the other religions are wrong. But are any of them right?

Now I'm thinking similar thoughts about God. I saw a website recently that compiled the names of all of the gods, worldwide and throughout history. They found 3800 different gods or supernatural beings. If I were inclined to believe, which one would I choose and why?

Dawkins points out that we're all atheists. We don't believe in Amon-re, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin, etc., etc., etc. He just goes one god further.

Disillusioned Catholic, November 11, 2006
I read numerous reviews before I bought this book. Because of the controversial nature of the topic I was very interested in the perspective of the reviewer. Often this perspective was easy to guess but not always. So to make this review more valuable to the reader I would like to state my background first. I am a 50 year old active Catholic who has slowly become disillusioned by religion starting as a child when told my Protestant friend would not go to heaven. For years I existed on "faith" since I personally could find no evidence that God existed. As a Catholic there is also a good helping of "guilt" for good measure. I am also a very strong Constitutionalist and believe that the only way to get along is to have freedom of and freedom from religion. With the recent surge of religious fundamentalism and its effects on politics I have become increasingly concerned about what Dawkins calls the American Taliban and the push for a Christian Theocracy. This actually scares me more than Al-Qaida. The words "Faith" and "Belief" have been morphed into the word "Truth". This new "Truth" has caused me to do a lot of searching for answers for what really is true.

Richard Dawkins book was extremely helpful and was the first book I have read on the Atheist side of the fence. I found Chapters 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 easy to read. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 10 were more scientific and a hard read for the average person. I actually needed a dictionary at my side to get through those chapters. I particularly liked the section in Chapter 3 on Pascal's Wager which I had mistakenly credited to Einstein in the past.

What I had found so interesting is that he expressed ideas that I had been developing in my brain for years, but did not feel free to discuss with others. (although he can state them more eloquently than I can). The result is that I have been pushed from a 5 to a 6 on his scale of belief.

The book is not only preaching to the Atheist choir, but to all those who a truly open minded enough to form there own opinions about God and religion. If you are in this category it is certainly worth purchasing.

Previous reviews stated that Dawkins was mean spirited and blamed religion for social evils. I did not find this to be the case, and I found that he was as fair minded as someone who believes as he does can be.

Dawkins imagines no religion., September 19, 2006
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect" (p. 284). In other words, the greatest crime of fundamental Christianity is to think without asking scientific questions. For those readers already familiar with Dawkins' work, it will come as no surprise that this book is nothing less than brilliant. Pity those readers, however, who either won't read this book (they should) or who will find nothing positive to say about it, because this is the work of one the greatest thinkers of our time.

In THE GOD DELUSION, Dawkins, the celebrated evolutionary biologist, Oxford Professor, and author (The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution), gives us a carefully-reasoned yet entertaining treatise on atheism that is equally eloquent and provocative. His basic argument is that the collective irrational belief in "The God Hypothesis" is not only wrong ("intellectual high treason"), but pernicious in its resulting intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelties to women, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science. Sure to provoke his adversaries, Dawkins not only portrays the "psychotic" God of the Old Testament as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" (p. 31), but also challenges, quite convincingly, every major argument for God's existence, and shows that the Founding Fathers considered religion to be a threat to democracy. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, claimed "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (p. 43). Benjamin Franklin said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" (p. 43). A 1796 treaty signed by John Adams declares, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (p. 40). Adams also said, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it" (p. 43). Even conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, threatened to fight fundamentalists "every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans" (p. 39).

While Dawkins is clearly out to change minds here, unfortunately, for most of his readers, he is only preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, for its erudite advocacy of science and rationalism at odds with the divisive, oppressive, injurious, and deadly forces of religion, THE GOD DELUSION is highly recommended. Further reading in this area includes Daniel Dennett's, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) and Sam Harris's, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and Christopher Hitchens' recent God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

G. Merritt

A Philosophical Handbook, April 25, 2007
There seems to be no middle ground with readers of The God Delusion, they either love it or hate it. That seems to reflect the preconceptions one brings to the volume, the religious feel attacked and the atheists feel vindicated. The religious scramble to find some way to counter the arguments, the often hostile beratement Dawkins delivers, while the atheists dance on the grave of dying religiosity.

My one real beef with the book is that although packed with enough argumentative logic to make it a seminal discourse on the refutation of deity (the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim deity almost exclusively), Dawkins relishes the ad hominem and childish attacks too much. That undermines his own work in places, and while the humor is biting and I found myself openly laughing I also see how offensive it could be to people of faith.

While I'm not going to contribute an overview because that's been covered so many times, in so many ways - in fact the words dedicated to synopsis by the various reviewers most likely exceed the actual words in the substantial volume itself - I will give an impression, my impression. My impression is that this is a book that I will refer to many times in the future. This is a book that I will keep on my shelf with the other reference tomes, and one which will become more valuable than the Bible itself.

Religion and the belief in God isn't going away, despite the arguments against deity. But I do think we need to arm ourselves against unwanted religious intrusion into our public and national lives. Dawkins, for all his gloating, does give a substantial refutation of the idea that morality is religious in nature. That alone is worth the cover price. It's brilliant to be able to cite logical case by case for the ideas of humanism as a source of moral behavior and good conduct.

Other than that, it's a great read, a valuable resource. I'll recommend it to all my friends, and send it as presents at Christmas (nothing could be more appropriate).

- CV Rick

Reaches its intended audience, December 21, 2006
Many have criticized this book for not speaking in a voice that could influence religious fundamentalists away from their delusion. There is no way the topic can be discussed that would have any hope of doing this. It would be akin to writing a book that through gentle persuasion would reason a paranoid out of his delusions. Ain't going to happen.

I believe the intended audience is those who already have grave doubts, and are looking for a well reasoned examination of the issue. I was impressed by the simple and straightforward approach to resolving a basic question: "since we can't know for sure if God exists, shouldn't we all be agnositics?"

I also enjoyed his definition of a pantheist (I'll leave that for the reader to discover).

The opening sections on Einstein and his "religious" beliefs, and a general discussion of pantheism and deism are worth the price of the book just by themselves.

As an aside -- those reviewers who cite Einstein's religious conversion away from atheism have clearly not read even this much of the book.

Written with great humor and wonderful quotations -- I am sure there is something here to offend just about everyone -- but also with great courage and forthrightfullness.

Not the best work on atheism, January 4, 2007
Before considering Professor Dawkins's bestseller, a mention must be made of the over 300 reviews here posted as well as the assorted blogs, debates, and article the book has provoked. Reading through these, whether pro or con, one can not help but notice a clear and unnerving trend, not unlike one sees in reviews regarding works on the Middle East conflict; those who agree with his thesis from the outset almost always offer resounding and unadulterated praise without considering even the possibility of flaws in his methodology or logic. Of course, at the same time, those who hold his position as heresy rarely respond in any logical method to his position and rarely even seem willing to acknowledge the professor's obvious strength's as a writer. Such failure of reasoning on both sides points to a disheartening decline in the state of the western intellectual tradition that should give every person pause.

As a great fan of Professor Dawkins's previous work, "The Selfish Gene," a book that provided me with great food for thought several years back and profoundly altered my thinking, I looked forward with excitement to "The God Delusion." Reading the new book on recognizes quickly that this is in fact one book, with three goals. Professor Dawkins imagines these goals as not only compatible, but structural to the argument he seeks to build. As for me I am less certain.

The first part restates much of what might be found in "The Selfish Gene," albeit more briefly and with some editions based on more recent scholarship. There is no need to review the whole of thesis, his obvious purpose will suffice; defending Darwinian evolution from the current relentless and often absurd assault it now suffers at the hands of certain individuals who prefer to shout at the storm rather than consider an umbrella. Now "The Selfish Gene," was nothing short of brilliant, and Dawkins here again demonstrates much of what makes him a gifted writer of science, explaining the strengths of Darwin's theory, and devastating many of the positions of those who argue against it. Other works of course cover this same ground, but there can be no doubt Dawkins here shines.

Of course, these points are not the goal of Dawkins's work, but only the foundation of a broader argument. From there he moves into an evolutionary thesis for the origin of belief and religion. Here he remains on firm ground, though many may find it disquieting, even as he moves to the next logical position that evolution and the cosmos requires no deity to explain itself. And it is from there that the Professor moves onto shakier ground as he seeks not to simply discount the evidence often cited for a supreme being, but rather argue against the possibility of its existence. Of course, the logical difficulty of proving an absolute negative - for example, "there are no blue dogs," are legion -- yet this of course does not deter the professor who approaches the subject with a zealot's fervor. Yet, many of the arguments here stand as both pugnacious and flawed, moreover revealing that while well versed in science, professor Dawkins might consider a few classes in philosophy, not to mention religion so that he might recognize that the Anglicanism in which he was raised is not the totality of all Christianity and, moreover, Christianity is by no means the totality of religion.

One might take his arguments one at a time, but I will focus on one, it having received great attention. Dawkins posits "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." Of course this ignores the prevalent notion of both the Jewish and Islamic tradition that God exists both inside and outside his creation, and thus cannot be fully known. Moreover, he likely would not like this argument applied to cosmology; the fact that it grows increasingly complex as our understanding grows does not make the next more complex factor less likely, but merely outside of our current grasp. The effort to understand this with probability as a method of rendering a supreme being unlikely comes across as self serving and holding to a standard the professor would surely not wish to apply to science.

Yet it is in the final piece of his work that Professor Dawkins becomes the most vitriolic and, in fact, a bit sophomoric as he attacks religion by pointing to all the evil in history rendered in its name. The effort appears like the work of a rather polemic inclined undergrad, especially as the Professor fails to consider the good brought by religion, nor seriously consider the degree to which concepts arising from religion have influenced or even founded much of the secular humanist philosophy he holds so dear. Moreover, Professor Dawkins shows no taste for considering the considerable evil done in the name of atheism. Regarding these, however, he has no stomach for discussion, writing curtly ""We are not in the business of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." Yet that is exactly what he does when it comes to those of faith, ignoring the torture and murder of many, often due to their particular commitment to religion done in the name of "reason" by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk. Instead, Dawkins contrasts theoretical atheist utopia with the religions practical and often horrific evils. Sadly, such an effort generates much heat and little light. Had he been willing to engage the more interesting and complex issue, he might well have concluded that humanity is capable of much horror and violence, for many motivations. But then, such a conclusion would hardly serve his narrow polemic goals.

Nothing in the world should be held as not subject to reason. Unfortunately, Professor Dawkins could well have used more of it in engaging in his efforts. While one can certainly render cogent arguments for atheism, indeed many have, the effort here seems more designed to score easy points by burning straw men at the stake. No doubt, this review will receive votes for and many more against, not based on its reasoning, but simply based on people's particular faith on which side of these issues the reside. But then again, most seem inclined to simply march along side their ideological kin, rather than engage in serious consideration of such weighty matters.

Inspirational, if perhaps ultimately idealistic., November 10, 2006
Dawkin's writing is always passionate, here though is a polemic that screams urgency on nearly every one of its 350 odd pages. Clearly born of a growing dismay at the re-encroachment of religion into not only moral but political discourse, Dawkins has set out his lifelong objections to both the irrationality of religious belief and also to the damaging effects he argues it has on society and above all to children. In a particularly controversial and biting chapter he condemns the religious indoctrination of young people as a form of child abuse greater than that of the catholic priest sex scandals.

I find Dawkin's prose electrifying, provocative and at times beautiful, particularly here when describing the compatibility of awe and wonder at the universe with the atheistic position. Dawkins attempts to rebut most of the historical arguments for God's existance, refute the claim that morality is dependent on at least a belief in God (if not his actual existence) and in general the idea that religion serves as some kind of Platonic noble myth keeping society sane, happy, moral and together. He ends the book by arguing that children should not suffer the abuse of being force fed religion, and instead should be raised as rational beings, helping to create a mature society in which scientific method determines questions of fact and philosophical reasoning that of moral value.

I'm an aetheist, though I have a much too pessimistic view of human nature to call myself a humanist, but upon finishing the book I was rather swept away for a short time in a kind of hope that reason can indeed one day abolish dogma and superstition to produce both a fairer and a happier society. I'm rather left thinking though, that perhaps that could only be in a society of cloned Richard Dawkins, or at least of an unlikely human society where most people have a level of intellect and courage even approaching his. At one point in the book he refers to a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism without drawing any negative conclusions as to how difficult that leaves turning the mass of not so intelligent citizens into rational moralists.

Due to his well known scientific dismissal of group selection theory, and despite a long discussion of 'memes', he doesn't seem to take on board the rather unfortunate but plausible possibility that whilst religion may be a clutch of often nasty Darwinian 'misfirings', selection processes involving memes may mean that those cultural groups who clothe these evolutionary blanks in the memetic robes of religion may in fact inevitably survive over those which don't. This is arguably something we are witnessing in parts of Europe where the increasingly secular populations are simply being replaced by the more fertile muslim populations. The survival of the religious 'go forth and multiply' meme vs the humanist feminist 'woman have the right to careers' meme seems to have one predictable outcome, both for the memes and the cultures that bear them. Consider, Amsterdam, the citadel of European humanism, now a place where homosexual couples are afraid to openly show their love for fear of being beaten up for offending religious sensibilities.

Another criticism in an otherwise excellent book, is that Dawkins spends far too little time rebuting the absurd charge, commonly thrown at him, that he is an atheistic 'fundamenatlist'. And absurd as the comparison with Islamic radicals or Bible literalists may be, it is one that has become almost a deep rooted Pavlovian criticism of Dawkins even amongst highly intelligent intellectuals. This is an accusation, incidently, which Dawkins admits here is acutely painful to him.

This is a brilliant and inspirational book and deserves to be read by as many people as possible. Although unlikely to be read with fair minds by religious believers, hopefully its fate is to become more than simply a 'Bible' preaching to already converted aetheists. I would imagine Dawkins aim in writing this book was to provide an inspiration for those wishing to fight the cancerous return of unthinking dogma in public life. In this, I'm certain he has succeeded magnificently.

Dawkins takes on religion, October 29, 2006
Richard Dawkins, well known writer on evolutionary theory, begins this volume by quoting from Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) (page 5): "`When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.'" This is a volume that religious readers will despise and that nonbelievers will probably speak well of.

There certainly are questions one can raise about this volume. For instance, Dawkins claims that the founders of the United States were not overly religious. However, research clearly shows that religious sources were among the most commonly cited in the lead up to the American Revolution. And the colonists were a religious people; some colonies had been, in essence, theocracies. However, such cavils are not directly relevant for the thesis of Dawkins.

The book runs along the following lines:

First, Dawkins explores standard arguments on behalf of God's existence and disposes of each of these. Some might argue that he attacks some straw men here, but--overall--this is a readable critique that will be compelling for some and not for others.

Second, he addresses why, in his opinion, the idea of the existence of God is unlikely.

Next, he asks why religion has become widespread. He adopts an evolutionary approach to address this. He ends up speculating that (page 174): ". . .there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question." In short, we tend to reify the values of our parents and other respected figures. If those values are religious, then people will accept those religious values with little question. He follows this discussion up by addressing why morality is so widespread, since many equate morality and religion. He examines a series of studies that suggest that both believers and non-believers accept fairly similar moral positions. Dawkins' question (page 226): "This seems compatible with the view, which I and many others hold, that we do not need God in order to be good--or evil."

Other questions are addressed as well, such as the contention that there is a gap in human life that God fills, the down side of the confident absolutism of many religious people, and so on. The book is well written and literate. In the final analysis, though, its basic contention is such that those who begin reading the book in agreement with Dawkins will like it and those in disagreement (if they read the book at all) will be appalled. Nonetheless, for those interested in the recent books focusing on the subject of the validity of religion, this is a must read.

Important and timely, September 24, 2006
One reviewer tells us that "There is no debate (NONE!) between science and religion. ........The biblical writers didn't intend us to take them literally, that is obvious. They were addressing metaphysical/spiritual matters with literature. So where's the debate?"

Where? Simple! Religionists will certainly not leave the determination of facts to scientists since as we have seen, they continue to make implausible empirical assertions about everything from the age of the earth to the literal exitence of angels. They also try to force religious ideas into the educational system. On the other hand, scientists (especially atheist scientists) are not about to leave moral and spiritual questions up to religionists (at least I won't).

Of course, even more important is the global political factors. The zeal with which those infected with religious fire try to convert the world and prevent folks from behaving in certain ways is astounding. Violence is always a possiblity when the belief is strongly enough felt. I was raised in a religious home, but overall, I now feel frightened by religion.

Dawkin's never fails to engage the issues intelligently and frankly. This book is no exception. Read with an open mind and try to not worry about what the meaning of life without God might be. It does have meaning but you must not let fear of death or hell get in the way of reason.

Good read, not for the layperson, January 8, 2010
I thoroughly enjoyed TGD, and appreciate the logic with which it was written. It does indeed point out the absurdity of an intelligent creator and at least the typical monotheistic idea of God. It is also a good introduction into rational thought vs. religious thought, and forces the reader into following a scientific system of reasoning when looking at evolution, rather than a religious and dogmatic one. The only problem that I see is that the language used may be out of reach for those with less than a college degree, and even some with one. At times Dawkins covers some very dry subject matter, but if you stick with it he eventually brings it all back to his thesis.

It's a definite must-read for those questioning their faith, looking for an alternative to religious explanations of life as we know it, and atheists seeking more scientific evidence against an intelligent creator god. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Thought Police. Big Brother. Orwellian. These words have entered our vocabulary because of George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, 1984. The story of one man's nightmare odyssey as he pursues a forbidden love affair through a world ruled by warring states and a power structure that controls not only information but also individual thought and memory, 1984 is a prophetic, haunting tale.

More relevant than ever before, 1984 exposes the worst crimes imaginable-the destruction of truth, freedom, and individuality.
With a new forward by Thomas Pynchon. ... Read more

Reviews

The kind of distressing book you NEED to read..., August 7, 2004
Eric Arthur Blair was an important English writer that you probably already know by the pseudonym of George Orwell. He wrote quite a few books, but many believe that his more influential ones were "Animal farm" (1944) and "1984" (1948).In those two books he conveyed, metaphorically and not always obviously, what Soviet Russia meant to him.

I would like to make some comments about the second book, "1984". That book was written near his death, when he was suffering from tuberculosis, what might have had a lot to do with the gloominess that is one of the essential characteristics of "1984". The story is set in London, in a nightmarish 1984 that for Orwell might well have been a possibility, writting as he was many years before that date. Or maybe, he was just trying to warn his contemporaries of the dangers of not opposing the Soviet threat, a threat that involved a new way of life that was in conflict with all that the English held dear.

Orwell tried to depict a totalitarian state, where the truth didn't exist as such, but was merely what the "Big Brother" said it was. Freedom was only total obedience to the Party, and love an alien concept, unless it was love for the Party. The story is told from the point of view of Winston Smith, a functionary of the Ministry of Truth whose work involved the "correction" of all records each time the "Big Brother" decided that the truth had changed. The Party slogan said that "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past", and they applied it constantly by "bringing up to date" the past so as to make it coincide with whatever the Party wanted.

From Winston Smith's point of view, many things that scare us are normal. For example, the omnipresence of the "Big Brother", always watching you, and the "Thought Police" that punishes treacherous thoughts against the Party. The reader feels the inevitability of doom that pervades the book many times, in phrases like "Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you".

Little by little, Winston begins to realize that things are not right, and that they should change. We accompany him in his attempt at subversion, and are unwilling witnesses of what that attempt brings about. This book is marked by hopelessness, but at the same time it is the kind of distressing book we all NEED to read...

Why do we need to read "1984"?. In my opinion, basically for two reasons. To start with, Orwell made in this book many observations that are no more merely fiction, but already things that manage to reduce our freedom. Secondly, and closelly linked to my first reason, this is a book that only gets better with the passing of time, as you can read in it more and more implications. One of Orwell's main reasons for writting this "negative utopia" might have been to warn his readers against communism, but many years after his death and the fall of communism, we can also interpret it as a caution against the excessive power of mass media, or the immoderate power of any government (even those who don't defend communism).

Technological innovation should be at the service of men, and allow them to live better lives, but it can be used against them. I guess that is one of Orwell's lessons, probably the most important one. All in all, I think you can benefit from reading this book. Because of that, I highly recommend it to you :)

Belen Alcat

The History Lesson You Wish you Had, March 3, 1998
George Orwell's final novel, 1984, was written amidst the anti-communist hysteria of the cold war. But unlike Orwell's other famous political satire, Animal Farm, this novel is filled with bleak cynicism and grim pessimism about the human race. When it was written, 1984 stood as a warning against the dangerous probabilities of communism. And now today, after communism has crumbled with the Berlin Wall; 1984 has come back to tell us a tale of mass media, data mining, and their harrowing consequences.

It's 1984 in London, a city in the new �berstate of Oceania, which contains what was once England, Western Europe and North America. Our hero, Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth altering documents that contradict current government statements and opinions. Winston begins to remember the past that he has worked so hard to destroy, and turns against The Party. Even Winston's quiet, practically undetectable form of anarchism is dangerous in a world filled with thought police and the omnipresent two-way telescreen. He fears his inevitable capture and punishment, but feels no compulsion to change his ways.

Winston's dismal observations about human nature are accompanied by the hope that good will triumph over evil; a hope that Orwell does not appear to share. The people of Oceania are in the process of stripping down the English language to its bones. Creating Newspeak, which Orwell uses only for examples and ideas which exist only in the novel. The integration of Newspeak into the conversation of the book. One of the new words created is doublethink, the act of believing that two conflicting realities exist. Such as when Winston sees a photograph of a non-person, but must reason that that person does not, nor ever has, existed.

The inspiration for Winston's work ,may have come from Russia. Where Stalin's right-hand man, Trotzky was erased from all tangible records after his dissention from the party. And the fear of telescreens harks back to the days when Stasi bugs were hooked to every bedpost, phone line and light bulb in Eastern Europe.

His reference to Hitler Youth, the Junior Spies, which trains children to keep an eye out for thought criminals- even if they are their parents; provides evidence for Orwell's continuing presence in pop culture. "Where men can't walk, or freely talk, And sons turn their fathers in." is a line from U2's 1993 song titled "The Wanderer".

Orwell assumes that we will pick up on these political allusions. But the average grade 11 student will probably only have a vague understanding of these due to lack of knowledge. It is even less likely that they will pick up on the universality of these happenings, like the fact that people still "disappear" without a trace every day in Latin America.

Overall, however, the book could not have been better written. Orwell has created characters and events that are scarily realistic. Winston's narration brings the reader inside his head, and sympathetic with the cause of the would-be-rebels. There are no clear answers in the book, and it's often the reader who has to decide what to believe. But despite a slightly unresolved plot, the book serves its purpose. Orwell wrote this book to raise questions; and the sort of questions he raised have no easy answer. This aspect can make the novel somewhat of a disappointment for someone in search of a light read. But anyone prepared to not just read, but think about a novel, will get a lot out of 1984.

1984, is not a novel for the faint of heart, it is a gruesome, saddening portrait of humanity, with it's pitfalls garishly highlighted. Its historic importance has never been underestimated; and it's reemergence as a political warning for the 21st century makes it deserving of a second look. Winston's world of paranoia and inconsistent realities is an eloquently worded account of a future we thought we buried in our past; but in truth may be waiting just around the corner.

Big Brother is watching you - read this book and see how!, May 25, 2000
George Orwell's classic was incredibly visionary. It is hardly fathomable that this book was written in 1948. Things that we take for granted today - cameras everywhere we go, phones being tapped, bodies being scanned for weapons remotely - all of these things were described in graphic detail in Orwell's book.

Now that we have the Internet and people spying on other people w/ webcams and people purposely setting up their own webcams to let others "anonymously" watch them, you can see how this culture can develop into the Orwellian future described in "1984."

If you've heard such phrases as "Big Brother," "Newspeak," and "thought crime" and wondered where these phrases came from, they came from this incredible, vivid and disturbing book.

Winston Smith, the main character of the book is a vibrant, thinking man hiding within the plain mindless behavior he has to go through each day to not be considered a thought criminal. Everything is politically correct, children defy their parents (and are encouraged by the government to do so) and everyone pays constant allegiance to "Big Brother" - the government that watches everyone and knows what everyone is doing at all times - watching you shower, watching you having sex, watching you eat, watching you go to the bathroom and ultimately watching you die.

This is a must-read for everyone.

Orwell's chilling work of genius has more than meets the eye, September 13, 2001
Most people read 1984 when in high school; it's an accessible classic, with plenty of shock interest as well as literary value. I'm reviewing 1984 here for those who may already have read it. The overall theme of oppression and the fear of totalitarianism is well known; but there are underlying themes that are interesting reading indeed.

For example, the excerpts of "the Book", purported to have been written by the underground resistance under Goldstein (or by the Party itself, if we are to believe O'Brian) is a mouthpiece for his social philosophy. In the fragment of three chapters, the ruling class, middle class and proletariat class (high, middle, low) are pitted in an eternal cycle where the high seek to exlude all others, the middle to achieve high status, and the low to simple create havoc and complete upheaval. Take a look if you haven't read this part of the book carefully. It's mighty interesting.

Winston's relationship to O'Brian is also fascinating; the enigmatic O'Brian, Inner Party member and intellectual, has a fatal attraction for Winston--even more so than his passive affair with Julia. And when O'Brian breaks him in the Ministry of Truth, it is as much a surrender of love as it is a brainwashing. The interaction of Winston Smith and his persecutor is a uniquely written relationship.

If you haven't re-read 1984 in a while, and especially if you read it when you were young, it's a great book to revisit.

Chillingly close to the bone, November 17, 1999
Six years ago I was in a bookshop and on the shelf I saw a copy of George Orwell's "1984". I had often heard people mention this novel on TV in political discussions and so on without really knowing what they mean't. Out of curiosity I decided to buy the book and see what it was like. I quite enjoyed it, and later that year we had to read it for Year 12 English. What I found interesting were the reactions of the other kids. Some liked it, others found it boring, uneventful or irrelevant. I remember one boy saying: "But 1984 was nothing like that!" The point about this novel is that it isn't supposed to be like a Nostradamus prophecy. George Orwell was writing about the social conditions that existed at the time in which he was living. Shortages, censorship, government red tape and the manipulation of popular opinion. I'm not overly concerned with the book's issues of politics or whether it's been proved inacurrate or not. I like to think of this as the story of an "alternative" 1984, a look at how different the world might be if history went in a different direction. Other books that explore this theme are "The Man In The High Castle" and "Fatherland" which are both set in worlds where the Nazis had won the Second World War. These books revel in historical inaccuracy. I think "1984" still has some relevance though. Especially the way the media alter people's view of the world by deciding what we should and shouldn't see, or the way newspapers "enhance" photographs. An example that comes to mind is when a newspaper altered a photo of the killer Martin Bryant by putting more shadow around his eyes to make this ordianary-looking man look psychotic. George Orwell was right about the idea of people being under constant surveillance, now that hidden cameras abound, a device more subtle and unobtrusive than the telescreen. Even though we're not all wearing blue overalls and worshipping a demi god, free will is being undermined in a more insidious way. This novel has made an impact on other writers, particularly Anthony Burgess. He wrote a novel called "1985". The beginning of that novel descibes his version of how the world of Big Bother, Ingsoc and the Thought Police came about. This isn't a sequel, more of a reaction to the former book. In conclusion "1984" is an interesting book of a world that might have been, and might still be.

Life Altering, April 12, 2005
Here is the book that first got me thinking about politics and philosophy.
This is Orwell's dystopia of how he feared the world would become run by a group of cahooting despots by 1984.
The main character, Winston Smith, lives in London in a dictatoeship run by "big brother". In this state there is no love but love for big brother. There is no excitment but patriotism. Chocolate is rationed and orgasms are banned. In this world smith somehow manages to fall in love.. and that's just the start of his problems.
1984 warns us to be wary of those who might take our freedom whilst trying to convince us we are actually gaining extra liberty. Buy it.

Devastating, but Worth the Trauma, May 10, 2004
For as long as I live I will always remember the day I finished "1984," the first time I read it, while seated in the back of my high school trigonometry class. Inconsolable, I gazed over the last five words - completely devastated - and sobbed uncontrollably.

In the ten or more times I have reread it since, I was no less shocked and shattered by the book's conclusion. Ostensibly a cautionary tale about a midlevel bureaucrat assigned to help reduce the number of words in the dictionary, "1984" is the tragic story of Winston Smith, a freethinking, middle aged man, who through glimmers of a childhood memories and clandestine visits to "prole" neighborhoods (newspeak for poor), radically tries to reconcile life in a totalitarian nanny state.

With the omnipresent hum of the tele-screen always present, Winston is the perfect party patsy, saluting the authorities and seething with anger at the daily "two minutes hate" that secretly leave our hero wondering who is the Emmanuel M. Goldstein, the object of the government's loathing.

When despite medical problems too gruesome to recount and enough secret spies to fill a Le Carre novel, Winston Smith conjures up enough optimism to pursue a romantic relationship with Julia, "1984" takes on a frightening turn. A devoted (or maybe not)? member of the Junior Anti-Sex League, whose signature emblem is the form-fitting sash that hugs seductively around her waistline, Julia is perhaps not the refuge Winston seeks. Or is she?

Without destroying the truly devastating ending, I would wholeheartedly recommend 1984 to anyone who is interested in politics, language, romance and government.

Yes, you may be left devastated by the book's last five words, but you will certainly be left with more to think about than drying your tears. - Regina McMenamin

Mind Rot, Without a Rat, December 23, 2006
That is what George Orwell warns us against in his bone-chilling and now increasingly accurate description of a world of revisionist history and massive invasion of privacy, abetted by technology to produce a society of conformity and fear.

Borne out of Orwell's personal experiences in Burma (the present day, repressive Myanmar) and his observations of totalitarianism at mid-Twentieth Century, "1984" is the story of an average bureaucrat of middling intelligence who seeks no more than to be a whole man who can think and speak his mind, display passion outwardly, and not lie awake wondering who may be watching him. Paranoia rules. Orwell gives us a riveting, sometimes grotesque explanation of what it finally takes in "1984" for one man to try to restore whatever remains of his genuine identity and self-respect.

Since the first publication of this timeless work around 1948 (reverse the digits, you're through the looking glass), Orwell's philosophical sentries have made a point of looking for examples in recent history to prove how prescient he was, and those signposts abound. For example, in the U.S., the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense (Newspeak), a soldier in Vietnam had to "destroy the village to save it" (Doublethink), certain municipal hate crime legislation was enacted to curb the utterance of mean-spirited language short of action, and law enforcement officials began publicly naming so-called "persons of interest" and spending years tracking their activities under the microscope of media coverage. Later, opponents of the Iraq War were branded by the government as unpatriotic (Thought Police). Overseas, Europe and Iran continue to feud over the existence of the Holocaust, with one government staging a conference to help prove it didn't exist while Austria threatens an anti-Semite with prison, raising the nettlesome issue of to what degree free speech should be curtailed in the name of community stability as defined by government.

"1984" does not have a happy ending. Its last four words slam the book shut on freedom. Orwell hoped to foment enough concern with his masterpiece to influence the course of history, and he has to some degree succeeded. There are millions of people around the world who have yet to taste true freedom and who will not relent until they have acquired it. There are others who constantly observe Big Brother, latter-day Orwells who gird each day for a fight to defend individual liberty.

A quarter-century after the real 1984, the public and private sectors, enabled by technology, have made it easier to know what the public is saying, thinking, and feeling. And in our own discourse as individual citizens, some of us have taken to playing fast and loose with the facts, or retreating from the world of terra-firma into a make-believe electronic neighborhood.

Will we, as a people, accept the "truthiness" of a Web posting, manufactured definitions on Wikipedia, or be content to have high-powered computer algorithms track our Web footprint in the name of consumerism? Will we retreat to our iPods and virtual reality games? How well will we pay attention? How much do we read? What do we read? And when are we willing to speak up, and to whom?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". - Jefferson

** HOW PROPHETIC **, January 21, 2005
This is one of those classics that I never got around to reading while in high school (it was required, but I just didn't read it ;)... At the request of a colleague I picked this book up last year and was blown away by point of the book. In the chaotic and unclear times we live in, I recommend this book to anyone and everyone who wants to understand what the point of the elite is and what the point of government is. Everything is about control and power ... AND KEEPING IT. We live in the novel 1984 ... and that's scary. Should be required reading for all Americans.

Fiction or Prophecy?, June 1, 2003
Winston Smith, member of the Outer Party, a small, petty cog in the great machination of "Big Brother", tries to step out from the shadow of his life in George Orwell's now masterpiece, "1984". Written over 50 years ago, this book was to serve several purposes, one being a warning to the present that a future like this, however fantastic and unbelievable, could be in the making should we allow for it to happen.

Winston leads the dull life of a worker, not encouraged to think, or dream, for feel for himself. His whole life must be driven to support the Party, which promulgates an apparent non-entity Big Brother as the supreme one. Winston early on shows the spark of individuality that the Party so wants to extinguish; by daring to write a journal on his own, he seals his fate early in the story. Soon he meets Julia, another worker, who charms and dares him even further to enocurage having an affair. Together they make a lethal pair, and some lethal decisions, which leads to the great climax in the Ministry of Love.

What lies in the story is an amazing prophecy of government gone mad. The Party believes in creating present truths by writing and rewriting the past on its whim. The Party understands in order to control the people, it must control the language, thereby, creating "Newspeak". The Party makes people simply vanish, eradicating them from existance. The Party realizes the people who follow are merely plebians in society, and therefore, should be encouraged to not think for themselves. In fact, the Party is able to directly lie to the people, using "doublethink", where they say one thing but mean the other.

How much of Orwell's nightmare is something that can be true today? Do we have a government out of control, one that manipulates information for its own benefit, to justify war, ensure fear and terror reigns over the country; one that illegally detains people without trial, right to counsel, or even being charged with a crime; one that wants to extensively monitor our personal phone calls, e-mails, the books we check out of the library, the things we buy in stores. The dots are there to connect them; the challenge is, will you dare to do it, like Winston Smith dared?

I believe 1984 is ultimately a hopeful book. Orwell wants to challenge humanity, that during times of crisis, we are able to rise up and change things, so the fateful prophecy so nobly and horrifyingly espoused in 1984 , will only stay between the covers of the book. The choice is up to us. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and other great teachers were born with brains built essentially like anyone else s. Then they used their minds to change their brains in ways that changed history.

With the new breakthroughs in neuroscience, combined with the insights from thousands of years of contemplative practice, you, too, can shape your own brain for greater happiness, love, and wisdom.

Buddha's Brain joins the forces of modern science with ancient teachings to show readers how to have greater emotional balance in turbulent times, as well as healthier relationships, more effective actions, and a deeper religious or spiritual practice.

Well-referenced and grounded in science, the book is full of practical tools and skills readers can use in daily life to tap the unused potential of the brain and rewire it over time for greater peace and well-being.

If you can change your brain, you can change your life. ... Read more

Reviews

Highly Recommended, November 23, 2009
We have often been told that by altering our thoughts, deeds and words, we can create a happier, more fulfilled life. This book, at the intersection between psychology, neuroscience, and Buddhism, offers effective methods to show us how to live such a life by being fully present in the moment.

Hanson and Mendius, a neuropsychologist and a neurologist and both practicing Buddhists, show us just how the brain programs us to experience the world a certain way by combining information from the external world with information held in neural pathways within the brain. These pathways operate in the background of our awareness, influencing our conscious mental activity. Unless we consciously interrupt this process, we are destined to develop deeper neural networks and even stronger programming.

The argument that the brain has the ability to simulate the world is not new. What is interesting is how Hanson and Mendius link Buddhist teachings on the causes of suffering (painful situations cannot be avoided but our emotional responses to them can) to the deep programming in our brains caused by ancestral survival strategies. They suggest that this hardwiring helped us survive constant life-threatening situations but is based on erroneous beliefs that we are separate, that it is possible to stabilize an ever changing world, that we can avoid situations that create pain and pursue only those that give us pleasure. None of these beliefs are true or can be attained. Their inherent contradictions cause us to live with an underlying feeling of anxiety taking us away from our true ground of being and causing much physical and psychological ill-health.

The main part of the book is a practical guide and is packed with useful exercises and guided meditations to help us develop a more loving, happier, and wiser state of being. The methods Hanson and Mendius suggest are informed by their experiences as therapists and management consultants, and are rooted in Buddhist teachings on mindfulness, virtue, and wisdom. I particularly liked the way they use neuroscience to underpin the tools they offer, only choosing "methods that have a plausible scientific explanation for how they light up neural networks of contentment, kindness and peace." Now I know why taking five deep inhalations and exhalations calms me.

Many of their methods show how to activate desired brain states by consciously changing the association between an event and its painful or pleasurable feelings. This can take a long time. Understanding the neuroscience behind the process can help us be compassionate with ourselves when "swimming against ancient currents within our nervous system."

This book is very informative, with helpful summaries at the end of each chapter. The authors' writing, even when explaining the intricacies of neuroscience, is infused with humor and fun to read. This is a good working manual to help us to become who we already are, and an important contribution to the growing body of knowledge on the relationship between mind, brain, and consciousness. Highly Recommended.

Review by Marta Freundlich

The Click and Clack of the Frontal Lobe, December 9, 2009
"If I know one thing for sure, it's that you can do small things inside your mind that will lead to big changes in your brain and your experience of living. I've seen this happen again and again with people I've known as a psychologist and meditation teacher . . ."
- Rick Hanson


Buddha's Brain will not only explain 'why' you should take in the good but 'how' you can achieve a more positive outlook with some basic awareness skills. The authors, Neuropsychologist, Rick Hanson and neurologist, Richard Mendius are the Click and Clack (Car Talk) of the brain. These two brainiacs/meditation teachers will show you how to create positive feelings that have many emotional and health benefits such as a stronger immune system and a cardiovascular system that is less reactive to stress. You'll learn how to create a positive cycle of good feelings that you can then spread to others. Enough with all the negativity out there! Haven't we all had enough?

As a Type-A New Yorker, one of my favorite exercises in the book is 'Hush the Verbal Centers.' Here you use the power of prefrontal intention to politely (or impolitely) suggest that the verbal activity (voices in your head) shut the hell up. Tell them if they are quiet and well-behaved you will invite them to come yammer away later on after the job interview/tax return/golf putt/midterm exam. For us control freaks this is especially wonderful because now we can control our brains, as well as everything else. Who knew life could be so swell!?!

Last, Hanson's wife, acupuncturist Jan Hanson writes an appendix on nutritional neurochemistry recommending nutrients, supplements and dietary basics to support brain function. "I've repeatedly seen that small, thoughtful, sensible changes in what you put in your mouth each day can gradually produce significant benefits," writes Hanson.

The authors have simplified the latest neuroscientific research and presented it in a wise and compassionate style that comforts and educates at the same time. Read this book and then pass it on to the cranky person in your life!
For more about Buddha's Brain or articles, talks and other educational resources, [...]

Not for everybody, April 24, 2010
This is a very good book in many ways, but it has one drawback that I think is very serious. Basically, the authors do not explain that the exercises they describe may lead to pain and frustration instead of increased well-being. They do point out, briefly, that if doing one of the exercises is uncomfortable, the reader should "feel free" to stop. This is not, however, nearly enough.

Let me explain.

The aim of the book is to guide people to increase the frequency and power of positive emotions in their lives--emotions like equanimity, compassion, gratitude and joy. (And, of course, to decrease the power of negative emotions like fear and hate.) There are a number of ways to do this, but the technique which the authors describe in the most detail is guided imagery. In guided imagery one imagines a situation that will trigger the desired emotion. Each time one creates these emotions, one strengthens their pathways in the brain/mind and thus makes oneself a happier/better person.

The problem is that when some people do this imagery they are unable to generate the intended feelings. Instead they feel disappointment and frustration at being unable to do what comes so easily (it seems) to other people. If the person has a history of failure at trying to improve her mood, and if the person has been told all her life to cheer up, look at the bright side, etc., than this can be quite painful, and, ultimately, psychologically harmful.

To see if these methods will work for you, try calling up some happy memory and see if it makes you feel happy. If it does, buy this book. There's a lot of good stuff here. If it doesn't, I recommend trying "The Mindful Way Through Depression". It has much of the same material but it is directed at people who have experienced long-term mental pain--not just depressives, but also people suffering from anxiety, chronic pain, and so forth. It is a tremendously good, useful, insightful book. (No, I have no connection with the book or its authors. I just think it's a great book.)

The authors deserve a nobel prize, March 8, 2010
This is one of the most amazing, life changing books I've ever read, and I've read a LOT in my 51 years. It's the only book I've ever taken the time to review on Amazon and I'd give it 100 stars if I could. Bringing together wisdom from the fields of psychology, neurology, and contemplative practice, they teach how we can create greater happiness, joy, & love in our lives. This is all based on recent western scientific research and thousands-of-years old wisdom, and not fluff created in the imagination of a new age entrepreneur. The authors describe how thousands of generations of social and environmental evolutionary pressures have wired our brains & bodies to work they way they do, and how we can use our mind to change our brain so that we handle stress better, and experience greater peace and joy. The implications of doing the work suggested by this book has the potential to profoundly improve the quality of one's life, and all those one contacts, and to change the course of the evolution of our species. As Rick says (in an interview), we have the brain of a cave-man with nuclear weapon capabilities. We need to learn how to be more loving, aware, compassionate, and self disciplined in how we treat the earth if we are to flourish as a species, and this book gives some practical tools on how to do this. I've been sharing some of these ideas in the classes I teach and many of my students have bought the book also. The authors also have a website with many great, free, down-loadable articles that elaborate on the ideas.

A great resource to assist the Western, logic-driven mind to make sense of it's "Self", January 27, 2010
I am a Soto Zen Buddhist living the corporate life. Having studied
physiology and now working as a coach and organisational change
consultant I found this book perfectly meets me where my western mind
is and succinctly points a guiding finger to help me understand
my Self. Many times I come back from meditation retreats and struggle
to make sense of and integrate my mindfulness practice within the
context of my ordinary life. This book helps A LOT!

The chapter on the self is worth the cover price alone. This chapter
beautifully brings together neuroscience, psychology and Buddhism into
a clear description on how we cause ourselves to suffer.

Highly recommended.

Buddha's Brain on My Mind!, November 3, 2009
"Buddha'a Brain" is a highly practical, no-nonsense manual to your brain that teaches you to drive your brain using the gearbox of your mind. This very well researched book trains you to fire up your brain, to cool it down, and even to expand your "consciousness workspace." The neuro-anatomical commentary that accompanies the Sunyuata doctrine of "no fixed self" is masterful! "Buddha's Brain" is a laconic, pragmatic cousin to James Austin's "Zen and the Brain." Bound to be a classic!

Pavel Somov, Ph.D.
author of "Eating the Moment," "Present Perfect: a Mindfulness Approach to Overcoming Perfectionism and the Need to Control," & "The Lotus Effect"

A pithy, pragmatic introduction to brain science & meditation, February 18, 2010
I started using this book in my life coaching work and personal meditation practice before even finishing it! Authors Rick Hanson and Richard Mendius have published a gem: This is a highly readable guide to actually using scientific knowledge about the brain in meditation and daily life. Buddha's Brain is written for ease of learning and retention. It's chapter synopses, guided meditations, and pithy, memorable language make it a joy to read and easy to apply.

I would have been happy with this book based on the chapters on The Evolution of Suffering, Mindfulness, Concentration, and Self alone. In the Foundations of Mindfulness chapter, the authors introduce the notion of neurological diversity, providing pragmatic examples of how each of us can adjust meditation practice to our own situations and attentional tendencies. The chapter on concentration,like the rest of of this book, strikes an elegant balance between touching on neurological factors (in this case the role of hormones and gamma waves) with very useful techniques for training the mind. The chapter on Self is beautifully written, weaving together neurology, social factors, and practical tips for relaxing into just being -- and being happier.

Buddha's Brain is a wise, accessible, and fascinating practitioner's companion. It is a resource I'll return to again and again, and is an excellent complement to two other books on my meditation and neurology bookshelf, Train Your Mind Change Your Brain and Being a Brain-Wise Therapist: A Practical Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology).

Highly recommended!

Enlightenment 101 !, December 12, 2009
This book is a perfect balance of what I have been looking for. It merges Spirituality with Science, which is not an easy task. It seems that this book has been taylor made to all my personal likings of what a book should be. The chapters are powerful and to the point, packing a lot of information, paragraph for paragraph. Furthermore, chapters are segmented into even smaller sections, which makes it easy to read and come back to. There is also a chapter summary of key points made at the end of each chapter. Key points explain how your brain works, how you can pay better attention to the way you think, and with practice, how changing your thoughts can change your life. Let it be understood, its no easy task to change old thinking patterns, but this book has been very insightful in helping to allow you to clearly see how the law of "cause and effect" within your own thinking patters shape and form the life you live today. This book is not a typical self improvement book... Id rather categorize it as a book to healthy thinking, based on Eastern philosophy. Id been waiting for this book to come out for a long time, and I give it a 10/10. Rick Hanson and Richard Mendius have a way of explaining very complicated things in very simple ways. If you take the time to consistently apply the principals in this book to your life, you will see changes.

Loved Buddha's Brain!, May 1, 2010
I was interviewing Rick on the radio (Mind Matters; KKNW 1150 AM) and I read Buddha's Brain for the interview. I read a lot of books and enjoy many of them, but this was outstanding, especially if you have an interest in understanding the scientific perspective on the mechanics of spiritual growth. Rick writes clearly of the challenges anyone faces who is interested in developing self-awareness and greater love, compassion, and happiness. To this discussion, he artfully weaves the latest findings in neuropsychology with traditional spiritual practices, showing that West and East are indeed meeting in meaningful ground important to all of us. It's a fascinating read and I highly recommend it. This book assures you that you not only can grow spiritually; you can actually change the way your brain functions.

Great Job!, February 1, 2010
"Buddha's Brain" is a book that is similar to the works of Dr. B. Allan Wallace, in that it attempts to conflate ancient contemplative practice with hard science, in this case: Neurophysiology. The authors successfully demonstrate that the older parts of our brain (the brain stem and mid brain) are evolutionary holdovers that served the purpose of increasing the chances of survival (and therefore the ability to procreate) yet, in this time and place we no longer have to be subservient to them. That is; we do not have to spend our lives chasing carrots (and being disappointed when we don't recover any) or avoiding sticks (and being disappointed when we get clocked in the head by one.) The crux of the argument is that we have newer, more evolved portions of the brain PFC, ACC etc., that can serve as bridges to other states of being and/or consciousness which will allow for a more unified, empathetic and compassionate life for all.

The most profound portion of this volume, for me anyway, was the prospect that there really is no physiological "hard wiring" of a distinct self. That is: the self which we refer to as "I" may just be another creation of the mind, a montage of distinct "nows" that the mind stitches together in a relatively seamless pattern with "self" or "I" at the center, which doesn't have a physiologic counter part. "Buddha's Brain" is a new, refreshing piece that discusses arcane wisdom in contemporary parlance. 4 and ďż˝ stars from me, with a 4 on the board.
... Read more

Editorial Review

One of the world’s most beloved and bestselling writers takes his ultimate journey -- into the most intriguing and intractable questions that science seeks to answer.

In A Walk in the Woods, Bill Bryson trekked the Appalachian Trail -- well, most of it. In In A Sunburned Country, he confronted some of the most lethal wildlife Australia has to offer. Now, in his biggest book, he confronts his greatest challenge: to understand -- and, if possible, answer -- the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us. To that end, he has attached himself to a host of the world’s most advanced (and often obsessed) archaeologists, anthropologists, and mathematicians, travelling to their offices, laboratories, and field camps. He has read (or tried to read) their books, pestered them with questions, apprenticed himself to their powerful minds. A Short History of Nearly Everything is the record of this quest, and it is a sometimes profound, sometimes funny, and always supremely clear and entertaining adventure in the realms of human knowledge, as only Bill Bryson can render it. Science has never been more involving or entertaining.


From the Hardcover edition. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In this groundbreaking union of art and science, rocker-turned-neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin explores the connection between music—its performance, its composition, how we listen to it, why we enjoy it—and the human brain. Drawing on the latest research and on musical examples ranging from Mozart to Duke Ellington to Van Halen, Levitin reveals:
• How composers produce some of the most pleasurable effects of listening to music by exploiting the way our brains make sense of the world
• Why we are so emotionally attached to the music we listened to as teenagers, whether it was Fleetwood Mac, U2, or Dr. Dre
• That practice, rather than talent, is the driving force behind musical expertise
• How those insidious little jingles (called earworms) get stuck in our heads

And, taking on prominent thinkers who argue that music is nothing more than an evolutionary accident, Levitin argues that music is fundamental to our species, perhaps even more so than language. This Is Your Brain on Music is an unprecedented, eye-opening investigation into an obsession at the heart of human nature. ... Read more

Reviews

New Appreciation of Music and of Brains, August 7, 2006
There are questions that are too big for science; are there gods, for instance, or what is love? And maybe we will never fully find out scientifically why music does what it does and why we care about it so. But for many reasons, music ought to be a profitable subject for scientific enquiry. It is, as Pythagoras knew, an activity strongly rooted in mathematics, and the physics of music is fairly well understood. It is as universal as language; all human cultures have some sort of music, indicating it does something indispensable. And we are increasingly able to figure out, with our sophisticated brain imaging gadgets, what brains do when they hear or think about music. The neuroscience of music is the area of expertise of Daniel J. Levitin, and he writes of it in _This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession_ (Dutton), a fascinating account of current music psychology. Levitin has produced a book wonderfully accessible to lay readers, since although he is an academic (he runs the Laboratory for Musical Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill University), before he became a scientist, he had been a performing musician, sound engineer, and record producer, working with names like Steely Dan and Blue Oyster Cult. He does pull examples from Bach and Beethoven, but he is obviously more comfortable citing universally-known tunes like "Happy Birthday to You", "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", or "Stairway to Heaven". (Readers whose tastes range in previous epochs will possibly be surprised at the sophistication modern popular musicians have displayed.) Levitin has a good sense of humor and is a genial explainer.

He starts out with a forty page first chapter "What is Music?", which is as good a short explanation of key concepts as tone, scale, fifths, and timbre as anyone could want, and is a fine foundation for all that comes after, a collection of scientific lore and tidbits from all over. For instance, even if you are not a musician, you have a huge store of tunes in your memory. You may not have perfect pitch, the ability to know that an A flat is an A flat as soon as you hear it, but Levitin's own research has provided surprising evidence that your sense of pitch, even if you are not a musician, is really quite good. Subjects who were asked to sing a song from memory got the absolute pitch just right, or very close; they did the same with the song's tempo. There are differences in the brains of musicians and nonmusicians. The corpus callosum, the mass of fibers that connects the right brain hemisphere to the left, is larger in musicians, and is especially larger in those that started music training early. The overall lesson here, though, is that we are all musical, even if we are not musicians, and so non-expert musical brains are really very similar to expert ones. There are descriptions here of surprising research that makes clear how truly ready our brains are to incorporate musical experience. Fetuses in the last three months of gestation, for instance, can hear music within the womb, along with other outside and inside noises. Experiments have shown that if you repeatedly play a song into the womb, and then make sure the child does not hear it again after birth until it is one year old, and then play the music again, the infant will prefer hearing the womb-music rather than completely novel music. This was true whether the experimental music was Vivaldi or the Backstreet Boys.

Levitin certainly has connections; he tells of discussions with Francis Crick about themes in this book, as well as with Joni Mitchell. The final chapter, "The Music Instinct", is a response to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who spoke at a 1997 convention of researchers in music perception and cognition. Pinker took the dismissive stance that music was "auditory cheesecake", tickling the parts of the brain that were really for the important functions of language and (unlike language) useless as a force in human evolution. It is not surprising that Levitin and his fellow researchers disagree. Darwin himself felt that musical tones were used in conveying emotion and that those who were able to expend energy in singing or playing were demonstrating biological and sexual fitness. Musical success does make for high numbers of opportunities for spreading one's genes (just ask Mick Jagger). Interest in music peaks in adolescence, indicating a role in sexual selection. Music has been around longer than agriculture, and there is no evidence that language actually preceded music in our species. It may have promoted the cognitive development that was harnessed for speech. Only in the past few hundred years did music become a spectator activity, but in the eons when it could have shaped our social evolution, it was a group activity that may have promoted group togetherness and synchrony. It is an engaging final argument that serves to emphasize the importance of all that the book has presented before, a demonstration that looking at an important human activity in a scientific way only increases our wonder and delight in the activity itself.

Extended Wikipedia article meets self-serving autobiography, December 28, 2007
I'm a musician who's been thinking about reading this book since seeing it favorably reviewed. I read it after receiving it as a gift this Christmas, and unfortunately found it to read like an extended Wikipedia entry. Opinions and speculation are stated as facts, claims are not justified with evidence, the author frequently oversteps his expertise, and the writing is otherwise amateurish, lacking direction and leaving loose ends. It seems as though the author wrote it off the top of his head without researching his points or his examples, and a number of statements are false. Other reviewers have listed their pet gripes (some of which have been fixed in the paperback copy), here are a few of mine that haven't been mentioned (and that still exist in the paperback):

-The detailed discussion of the Haydn's Surprise Symphony theme (p92-93) is flawed at every turn: He uses the term parallelism (a term reserved for describing a particular harmonic device) incorrectly to refer to the melody. He describes the melody as going up "just a little" when what we have at that point is the *largest interval leap* anywhere in the theme. Then, "the highest note we've encountered so far" in the melody is incorrectly identified as the fifth. We have already (just two notes ago) heard the C above the G he is referring to. (The highest note is the tonic, not the fifth). Finally, the "surprise" in the Surprise symphony, is identified in the wrong place--eight measures too soon. Why so much detail about something the author hasn't researched? Not only that, but the misunderstandings lead him to bad analysis.

-In one of the book's stupidest sentences, the author claims that "A schema for Dixieland includes foot-tapping, up-tempo music, and unless the band was trying to be ironic, we would not expect there to be overlap between their repertoire and that of a funeral procession" (p117). Dixieland bands playing funeral processions is, of course, an important and well-known New Orleans tradition.

-Beethoven's Ode to Joy theme from his 9th symphony is used as an example of violating expectations (p 119). He describes that we expect the first phrase to end on "do" and we are surprised to hear it end on "re." In the second phrase we are surprised to hear it end on "do" after hearing the first phrase end on "re." Most musicians would disagree with this analysis. This phrase structure is so common, in fact, that there are terms for paired phrases such as this. (The first phrase, typically ending on a member of the dominant chord as happens here, is called the antecedent. The second phrase ending on the tonic is called the consequent. Together the pairing is called a period, or informally a call-and-response.) What is described here as Beethoven's clever violation of expectation is a very good example of the very most common phrase structure in all of music.

-Later, in describing how jazz musicians play over AABA song form (p238-239), Dr. Levitin explains that the "B" section is the "chorus." I think you'll find that by far the most common term for the B section is the *bridge,* the term "chorus" being reserved for one entire iteration of the form. He goes on to describe this as a point of confusion, but it's not if you use the usual terms. Confused himself, he also says "Some songs have a C section, called the bridge." One of his own examples, "All of Me" is ABAC. However, most musicians would say that this song has no bridge, and certainly the C section of "All of Me" cannot be considered the bridge.

I don't have the time or the space for a line-by-line critique of the entire book, but suffice it to say that my examples are not cherry-picked (rather the positive aspects in some reviews seem to be cherry picked, and some of the positive reviews are not so positive). The writing throughout the book is imprecise, inaccurate, misleading, and interspersed with nonsense. The anecdotes make up a conspicuously large portion of the book, and are conspicuously self-serving (dropping the names of rock stars and famous scientists). He has an entire chapter on meeting Crick (of the DNA-discovering pair Watson and Crick). According to the author's account, he was nervous, and had a past memory that kept him from introducing himself. What a relief to find that after finally meeting, Crick enjoyed his company and found his research fascinating! ("Crick's eyes lit up. He sat up straight in his chair. 'Music,' he said. He brushed away his lepton colleague.") On reflection, the topic of music and the brain seems less the main point of the book, and more a jumping off point for a superficial, glowing autobiography. I was disappointed.

Fascinating information on how our brain is involved in our perceptions of music, September 21, 2006
The first thing is that this is a book expressing ideas about how the human mind processes music and how the brain is involved with that processing (not HOW the brain processes it, which no one knows), rather than a book on music. While I am not obsessed by the topic, I find the exploration of the mind and brain function fascinating. My interest was piqued when my father was taken by a brain tumor and I tried to find material on the subject. I read "Phantoms in the Brain" by V. S. Ramachandran and then some articles by others in the field who claimed the mind is simply an illusion created by brain function, that our sense of consciousness and choosing is simply false.

This has always seemed wrong to me, no matter how much of our brain function occurs without our "mind" or "consciousness" being involved in any way. Being a pianist, it has seemed to me that there is no biological necessity to play Chopin. And when I sit down at the piano, I choose what to play, how to play it, and whether to learn the piece in the first place. I was amused when I read articles by Pinker and others struggling in trying to come to terms with some evolutionary reason for music. Some simply dismiss it (I think because it is so inconvenient to their models), others try and find it a way to attract mates (as this author does), others find it an accidental use of some other evolutionarily advantageous trait even though they can't quite identify what it is or was.

So, I was glad to read this book because of my interest in the brain and mind along with my passion for music. It is indeed a very interesting book that I could not put down. Daniel Levitin is a scientist whose work involves trying to understand how the mind perceives music and how that maps into the brain. It helps that he is also a musician. He worked in a commercial rock and roll band and as a record producer. Now, I am a classical musician and have a degree in music theory, so it is unsurprising that he and I view some aspects of music differently. In fact, I found some of his descriptions a bit sloppy and more simplistic than the simplification required in communicating to the general non-musician reading public. But then again, I know nothing about the technical terminology of brain function.

Just a few examples that stopped me cold. On page 31 Levitin asserts that the way we use sharps and flats is artificially complicated. He says, "there is no reason for the system to be so complicated, but it is what we are stuck with." Well, actually, there are several great reasons that have to do with the way our music system has evolved over the past eight centuries and more. There weren't keys or chords or even scales in the beginning. As soon as things would become settled in one generation a new generation would come along and stir things up because they wanted something a bit more this or a lot more that. So, the musical system adapted to accommodate the new music.

The idea of those keys and chords Levitin refers to as features of all music are really only a few hundred years old while the notions of modulation or "changing keys" is younger yet. And as he notes, non-Western music is organized more along "melodic" and "motivic" principles than our notions of functional harmony.

Some experimental music systems have been proposed over the past couple of hundred years and they have caught on about as well as Esperanto replaced English, French, or the hundreds and thousands of other natural languages and dialects. And for similar reasons. A complicated "natural" system, even with their inconvenient irregularities, will outlast a regular and tidy "artificial" system every time.

When he was discussing "keys" around page 36, he asserts that tonal prominence is given to the stated "key" through assertion by repetition. Actually, no. It is not a simple subject, but the tonal center of a major key is asserted by the combination of perfect fifths versus the one diminished fifth on the note a half step main keynote, plus the combination of major and minor thirds plus the combination of whole and half steps. When evaluated, there are a number of places in the scale that are ambiguous, but there are unique combinations that become pointers to the key center. And this is why the minor key, which the author asserts has purely cultural status (wrong), is used by composers to connote affects with more ambiguity.

C-major and a-minor (in its natural form) use exactly the same notes. When you play a-minor in its natural form you will eventually want to get to C-major (and that is why most classical piece in the minor mode modulate first to the relative major key rather than the dominant as is done in major keys). In order to make a-minor sound like a tonal center the harmonic form has a "raised" seventh scale degree (one of those pesky accidentals Levitin dislikes) so that it is a half-step below the key center (g-sharp in a-minor instead of the g-natural the key signature would call for) in order to provide a cadence as satisfying as the normal defining cadence in the major key. But this is getting too technical, and may be why the author avoided these discussions. After all, this is a book for the general reader and one must simplify things that are sometimes difficult to simplify.

Another time he uses the argot of commercial rock music in a way that would be confusing to people trained in traditional musical grammar (what is usually called music theory). At one point, he is writing fondly of the music of Joni Mitchell and her difficulty in finding a bass player who is sympathetic to and compatible with her approach to the sound of her music. Levitin recounts a conversation with Mitchell when they talked about most bass player wanting to play the roots of the chords of her music when she didn't want them to play roots, just play something that sounds good. OK. But bass lines don't always play the root note of every chord. That would be idiotic and boring. So, they do add passing tones and other "non-harmonic" tones. The problem wasn't that the bass players were so dim as to want to play only the fundamental notes of the chord (which would be boring indeed), but that they wanted defined harmonies at each moment in the piece, but Joni views her music more linearly. She can let harmonies from one chord linger into the sound of the next chord. Mitchell hears the music going from here to there and the stuff in between is a path between the departure and arrival points, but might not be a traditional triad. OK. That is fine. It is called voice leading or counterpoint. But pop musicians usually don't study that aspect of music.

It is important to note that much of music is not really analyzable without understanding voice leading. Not everything is just chord-chord-chord outside of the freshman four part chorale writing exercises. Believe me, there is no harmonic structure that Joni Mitchell is going to create that hasn't been done before, no matter how unique or personal her "sound" or timbre as Levitin likes to call it.

Anyway, it is clear that Levitin approaches music from the point of view of pleasure and the joy of sound rather than the idea of meaning because that is much harder to define let alone map in the brain. When the author is talking about the parts of the brain that are activated when listening to music, it is all quite interesting and I enjoyed it very much. He is very enamored of the idea of schema and taps into the Chomsky model of generative grammar, a model that has had tremendous descriptive power, but has been quite lacking in explanatory power.

The author uses the idea of the subtle rhythmic and pitch changes that a Frank Sinatra or other master musician uses as creating their effects because they violate some sort of schema built into our brains. It is true that we do try to impose order on anything. We want things to fit together and will stick purposes in where there isn't one. However, the kind of subtle changes Levitin describes are called expression by musicians for a reason. Just as we emphasize words and meanings in our speech or movement by stressing something by making it earlier or later than its peers, or louder or softer, or part of a pattern that is somehow different than what one would normally expect, we also do that in music. But it is noticing a difference in relation to what is around it rather than something universal. We don't feel that a piece that is 60 beats a minute is somehow fast or slow because of our brains, we hear what is IN the piece and decide if the tempo is appropriate, too fast (dense) or too slow (not much happening). We want a certain amount of activity based on our human experience of reality. If there is a lot happening in the piece we perceive it as we would perceive an activity in real life with a lot of things happening and would feel similar emotions. But again, this is too technical.

I was also fascinated when he discussed the redundant structures in the nerves going from our ears to our brain. He talks about it having a part to play in our startle reflex. However, I also wonder if loud sounds don't cause strong enough pressure waves on our skin to cause those nerves to become involved as well and from there to the spinal column. But I don't know anything about this except from my own experience at being startled.

Just one of the many interesting observations the author makes concerns the role of talent in success. He describes a study done in which young people are rated by experts as to their talent in a given field. A longitudinal study is done and an analysis of who ended up successful shows that there is a factor much more powerful than native talent. The author points out that the most important factor in success is 10,000 hours of work in that field. This corresponds deeply to my own experience.

When young people ask me what they can do to learn to play the piano, I tell them to play five million notes. I don't care which ones. After the first million they will get bored of playing with their fists, knees, nose, or whatever and by the third million they will be taking it seriously. And I suppose it would take about 10,000 hours to play that many notes. I have also taught my children that talent is a multiplier of work. So a talent of 10 that multiplies a work effort of 1 loses out to a talent of 5 that multiplies a work effort of 100 and loses by a lot.

In any case, this is a fascinating book regardless of my slight disagreements and likely misunderstandings of what the author is saying. I am sure you will find a lot to enjoy and I recommend it with enthusiasm.

How did this book get published?, June 14, 2007
pp. 28-29: "One of the several notes we call A has a frequency of 55 Hz and all other notes called A have frequencies that are two, three, four, five (or a half) times this frequency." This is simply wrong. The other notes called A are 110 Hz, 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz - that is, you double (or halve) frequencies to produce octaves. The author claims to know music and science and yet gets this basic fact of musical science wrong?

p. 60: "Think of 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,' written by Mozart when he was six years old." It was not written by Mozart, it is a French song called "Ah! vous dirai-je, Maman." Later in life (not in childhood), Mozart composed some variations on the song, as did many other composers.

I read a book to learn something new. But if I see mistakes about things I already know, how can I trust the author about things I don't know? Mistakes this elementary, moreover, raise the question of editing. Did no one with a basic competency in music read this book before it was published? Did Keith Lockhart, who surely knows the relationship between frequencies, read the book before he wrote - or signed - a blurb for it?

The Big Bang Big Band Harmonic Convergence, December 19, 2006

Half-whispered in the background, it's hard to get too far away from suspicion. The question remains: Does analyzing music scientifically take away from the aesthetic appreciation?

I had once thought of music as the ultimate proof of the glorious irrelevancy of science. But it's really no different than any other pleasure. Does learning cosmology detract from the beauty of a star filled night? Can a couple of physics lessons dull the gaping excitement of seeing a massive rainbow absorb the sky? I conquered this ambivalence personally, while lying in the sun, on a hot day, at altitude, following a final in a physics class. Everything clicked together in my head, the nuclear reaction I watch sizzling eight minutes and eighteen seconds ago, the light as waves, the heat as energy, the energy as mass, the waves as particles. It all clicked, and it was fine. We were all vibrating together in the same rich meaninglessness, and a good feeling felt good whether I purposefully conquered every little detail or it blindsided me and left my head spinning.

That's the day I got it. That science is not a static pool of knowledge. It is not a religion. It is not a method. It is a process, and a spiritual one at that. That was the day, lying there, absorbing photons and resonating passively in the hum, the Ohmmmmm. Science is as much a quest as any other system of belief. And nothing is off limits. Nothing is reduced by knowing that another layer of explanation can be sought out.

And what better subject to tackle scientifically than the beauty of music. Like consciousness, like science, music too is an arbitrary punctuation around organically transmitted, unconsciously determined, preferred patterns of influenced interactions.

So, how's the book?

Not bad. He does a nice job of illustrating the importance of music in our lives and the emotional impact music can convey. He has a nice introductory section where he defines the basic terms of music such as pitch, rhythm, tempo. It's the kind of stuff you get the first week in a music appreciation class, and Levitin does a nice job with it. He never takes his eye off the bigger questions though, for example, he opens his definition of pitch with the disclaimer: "Pitch is a purely psychological construct." He then needs an introduction to neuroscience before he can connect the two streams, discussing the hotter than ever topics of mind, brain, and consciousness. Of course, he has to throw in a little introduction to evolutionary theory as well.

The mistake armchair Anthropologists frequently fall into is taking a complicated concept, music in this case, or intelligence in other infamous cases, and reify it as if it were a single discrete thing. So let's come up with theories of selection for musicality as if it were the scientific equivalent of Mendel's wrinkled garden peas. But Levitin does a nice job of showing how different parts of the brain process different aspects of music. He gives a nice sense of the complexity involved and the parallel processing necessary between different realms of music. If you think about it, this should come as no surprise to anyone who has listened to a one-year old discover language. They can babble with the rhythms, intonations, and prosody of fluent speech well before they have the actual words. It should come as no surprise to any musician, anyone who has experienced that moment when the execution shifts from working memory to procedural memory. My favorite part of playing the piano is reaching the point where my cerebellum and basal ganglia are doing the heavy lifting. Then I can sit back and enjoy the music, like some kind of twisted grandiose self-sycophantic fan, without thinking about what I'm doing.

So formulating the question as "What evolutionary advantages were conferred on individuals who exhibit musical behaviors?" is a mental exercise. A fun and pleasantly meaningless one. Musical sensibility is much more likely an offshoot of multiple smaller functions of the brain, such as language processing, mother-infant interactions, the novelty seeking and cognitive flexibility behind creativity, or empathy, all of which individually may respond over time to certain selective forces. This does not mean, as Steven Pinker and the Blank Slaters would assert, that music is a meaningless accident. It is a part of all the systems that contribute to it, an echo of numerous other functions that comprise our humanity.

When a music lover hypothesizes that musical instincts may have been the prime factor in promoting the cognitive development of the species, it is no more a sophisticated argument than when a drug enthusiast, such as Terrance McKenna, proposes that psychedelics were the primary force behind the expansion of the human cranium. Isn't it funny? No matter how far we come, we're still story tellers creating creation myths in our own image. So my personal hypothesis: The primary force behind the evolution of human intelligence is the drive to drink Tanqueray and play backgammon while listening to Gabby La La. You heard it hear first. Evidence pending.

It is an ambitious book in its scope, especially when the conversation also needs to be liberally peppered with references to Philip Glass and John Cage, Bernstein and Bach, Sinatra and Parker. Well, you know musicians love showing off their chops. Anyway, thumbs up for a solid, thought-provoking read. You've just got to appreciate anyone who uses "mirror neurons" and "iPods" in the same sentence.

Overrated and overstuffed, January 22, 2007
This book is divided into 3 sections. Nearly half the book deals with the technical basics of what defines and characterizes music, a tedious block of chapters that could have been reduced to an enlarged glossary. The second section is the more interesting, since neuroscience and cognition is at last treated, and here Levitin discusses some new experimental information on the mysterious processes that make music a unique and emotionally powerful form of language and communication. However, it is too short and rather sketchy, and we are left thirsty for more and more detailed information. The final quarter of the book is taken up in a hodge-podge of topics, from the predilections toward certain musical tastes, to the qualities of musicianship, to evolutionary origins of music, all of which could be a book in themselves. Indeed, the several books of Joachim-Ernst Berendt are far more worthy in dealing with these various subjects. Thus, only about 1/4 of the book actually approaches the specific subject of the title, with only a couple of pages mentioning how music triggers the pleasure pathways and regions involved in addiction and obsession, aspects that bring a philosophic attribute into biochemistry. Scattered throughout the book are references to popular Western music, jazz, and classic compositions, in order to provide some reference points for the readership. World music, which has a wider spectrum of timbre, so important in his discussion, is barely scratched. In short, I was disappointed with the book as being insufficiently focused.

Could have left out 95% of the book, February 7, 2007
As a professional musician and an amateur scientist (that is, I studied science in college before pursuing music as a career), I found this book to be condescending and packed with needless and uninformative drivel. I had hoped for a detailed and fascinating book that would shed light on such curious questions as to why humans developed music, why some people are more musical than others, and why we get songs stuck in our heads so easily. I was extremely disappointed that instead of a discussion of these subjects written for an intelligent reader with a basis in either music or science, the author seemed to believe that his audience would be people who had a background in neither field--something I would think would be highly unlikely in a person taking the time to read a book with such a focus. There were far too many dull anecdotes about all the famous musicians the author had had the pleasure of meeting (perhaps he was trying to impress his non-musician readers?), and wading through the name-dropping to find the very few facts and scientific theories in the book was not terribly rewarding. I can recall approximately three interesting facts that I learned from the book, which would explain all the filler--if all he'd written were the three discoveries he'd made, the book would have been only seven pages long.

If you're interested in this book and its ideas, I suggest you find a copy that some college student was required to read and hope they underlined the three important facts for you. It will save you a lot of time.

Triviality masquerading as science, April 5, 2008
Think about earworms, you know, those tunes that you can't stop playing back in your head.

Now we'll play a little game. We'll take some ordinary English sentences but dress them up in smartypants neuroscience language. So instead of saying "in your head" you say "in your brain". And instead of saying "idea" you say "neural pathways representing a concept". You can probably make up your own rules for converting English to Neurospeak. "I have a headache" might become "a neural excitiation in my brain is causing the my pain sensors to represent pain in my cerebral area" or "I remember that book" might become "signals from my optic nerve are analysed and compared with prior stored representations of books until a match is found" and so on. Anyone can play, it's easy.

Dan Levitin knows how to play. Here's what he has to say on earworms: "Our best explanation is that the neural circuits representing a song get stuck in `playback mode'". Cute eh? But here's the weird thing. He doesn't realise this is just a game you can play with language. He thinks these are actually scientific explanations. In fact he spends 300 pages writing trivial things about music in Neurospeak, presenting it as science. It's like Moliere's joke about explaining how opium works by saying it has "soporific virtue".

It's not completely content-free however. For example he has a quote from Newton pointing out that you can't see the colour of light waves, rather that light waves are what you use to see things in colour. Bizarrely Newton made no such claim because he believed light was made of particles, not waves. The point still stands, but how did a completely fictional quote like that get through? Is it acceptable to make up quotes from scientists to make your point?

At one point Levitin tells us all about the mistake of Cartesianism - the idea that the things we sense in the world are just encoded in a new representation that some inner self can view, as if the external world is presented on an inner screen in our brains. That, of course, leads to an infinite regress. Who watches the inner screen? This is all well and good, but throughout the book Levitin describes a model of the brain that is 100% Cartesian. For example, he says that when we hear a sound, the end of the journey is a mental image of that sound. He seems to have missed the point that the philosphers he quotes, Wittgenstein and Dennett, devoted much of their lives to demolishing such a silly picture.

I did find the discussion of the roots of Joni Mitchell's chords quite interesting however, not that I like Joni Mitchell. But that saves the book from one star.

Oh, and Levitin does know a lot of famous people, if you're impressed by that sort of thing.

Words have rarely done as much for music, August 4, 2006
A good writer with a unique background, Levitin presents facts and ideas useful for musicians, ordinary music lovers, and everyone who cares about brains. His interview on NPR (Diane Rehm, Aug. 3) includes musical examples. The first chapters may be scanned by trained musicians and by those who have little interest in music theory to get to the unique material in the book.
--EJL (psychiatrist and amateur cellist)

Some Fascinating Parts, December 29, 2006
Parts of this book really blew me away. I loved reading about the reasons why certain music appeals to me, the connections that are being made in my brain and the evolutionary development of a love for music. I gained a greater appreciation for musicians in general and especially those who take risks in their composition.

I found some of the technical information hard to follow, though. I am neither a professional musician nor a professional scientist, so I found myself sometimes lost in the details of science and music contained in this book.

My other major problem with this book was that Levitin referenced so many songs, using them as examples in his writing with the assumption that the average reader would immediately be able to bring to his or her mind the song and the part to which he referred. I know most, but not all, of the songs mentioned in this book, but I often had trouble "listening" in my mind to specific musical phenomena. I found myself stopping for long periods of time in my reading, desperately trying to think of a certain tune. This book should have come with a CD of all of the music Levitin mentions; I would have found it very helpful. ... Read more

Editorial Review

"You may not find happiness in a book, but if reading a book can precipitate a tectonic shift in your life and mind toward robust, genuine, deeply rooted happiness, this would be the book." --JON KABAT-ZINN, AUTHOR OF COMING TO OUR SENSESThis is a revolutionary look at happiness, deeply philo-sophical and tremendously engaging, from one of the world's most compelling voices on the subject. Drawing from works of fiction and poetry, contemporary Western philosophy, Buddhist thought, current psychological and scientific research, and personal experience, Ricard weaves an inspirational and forward-looking account of how we can begin to rethink our realities in a fast-moving modern world. With revelatory lessons and exercises that blaze a clear path for readers, this book offers an eloquent and practical guide to a happier life. ... Read more

Reviews

An Intelligent Guide to Well-being and Happiness, April 15, 2006
Review of "Happiness: A guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill" by Matthieu Ricard. Published by Little Brown.


What a joy to find such an intelligent and creative approach to the universal quest for happiness and well-being! Matthieu Ricard begins by examining our definitions of happiness and then leads us on a journey that explores the causes and conditions for happiness, our own inner mechanisms that do or don't create happiness, how to deal with death and difficulties, the sociology of happiness, and so on.

The book's emphasis is on how to develop inner resources for a sense of happiness and fulfillment that is not dependent on outer circumstances. There is real freedom in the knowledge that we can move towards an authentic sense of well-being by working with our ways of relating and processing the obstacles and circumstances that present themselves. This is all helped along by the short enjoyable exercises that lead the reader through a process of getting to know the mind and how it works.

Matthieu Ricard's voice is quite unique and I liked his use of metaphor to describe various emotional states and how to deal with them. I also found the sociology of happiness an interesting chapter, revealing the trends of our society, and I especially liked learning "first-hand about the work of neuroscience and the brain.

please read this book, October 3, 2006
Few books clearly articulate the richness of Buddhist psychology for the general reader. Few books can inspire the reader to live more skillfully and empower her with teachings and tools to cultivate true happiness. Sure there are any number of "self-help" books on "how to feel happy," etc., but Ricard's book teaches about a much deeper, transformative happiness, which is within the reach of every human being.

Buddhist psychology, developed over many centuries, is consistent with much that we have recently learned and continue to learn about our minds and our brains from neuroscience, cognitive science, and "western" psychology. Ricard, a Tibetan monk, is equally at home in Buddhist teachings and contemporary science--he was a scientist before his days as a monk.

In a world with so much violence, so much sadness, and so much negativity, Ricard teaches us how to cultivate happiness, not by blinding ourselves to reality or by looking to some other world above and beyond our own, but by looking upon ourselves and others with the loving eyes of the Buddha. And these teachings have nothing to do with believing any doctrines or even "the truth" of Buddhism. They are practical teachings to be applied in everyday life. The "truth" is in the practice. The Buddha did not want anyone to believe anything just because he said it. He invited people to see for themselves. So see for yourself.

Even if you are not and have no interest in "becoming a Buddhist," I highly recommend this book. I would not consider myself a Buddhist, but the values expressed by Ricard are values I cherish and aspire to embody in my day to day life.

The chapters are also relatively short, so each one can be read and fully digested before moving to the next. (Perfect for reading in bed or on public transportation.)

If taken to heart, this book will surely benefit you. I hope that it does.

Happiness Is A Skill, June 14, 2006
Matthieu Ricard was born and raised in France. He had the makings of a stellar career in science, studying in his student days with a Nobel-prize winning scientist. But throughout his 20's, he shifted his interests more and more towards spirituality. For the past 30 years, he has lived and studied as a Tibetan Buddhist, in Nepal. He often serves as the French translator for the Dalai Llama.

Ricard is a man who knows science. And, as a Frenchman, is deeply familiar with pessimism. He says, in France, happiness is considered boring, while pessimism and misery is considered quite interesting. "Happiness is only for the naive" is a common Western mindset. However, Ricard says: "Not true."

Not only is happiness interesting - it is a skill, a challenging skill to be acquired only through intense practice. Pessimism, on the other hand, is boring - for it creates apathy, and a general lack of zest for life.

As a man deeply interested in science, Ricard knows what he's talking about. He explains amazing discoveries made by the Mind & Life Institute. Placed under MRI brain imaging, Tibetan monks have shown to experience far greater happiness and are more emotionally balanced than any 'average' person. Scientists can gauge happiness by the amount of activity in the frontal lobe related to positive emotions. (There's also a section of the brain related to negative emotion, and criticism, which remains relatively dormant.)

In one experiment, testing what's called a "startle" reflex - something that every human has (it's an uncontrolled flinch of one's facial muscles that occurs whenever a loud noise goes off) - a spiritually advanced monk was monitored for this reflex. When the loud noise went off, unlike anyone else ever tested, he did NOT flinch. The heart rate still went up, but the fear and flinch reflex were less apparent than in any experiment to date. Meaning: there is scientific proof that meditation grants a person peace of mind.

This feat is accomplished through a sort of mind jujitsu - a way of keeping one's thoughts in balance. And one can accomplish it through egolessness and unattachment. Not that Ricard promotes sitting on a mat, and meditating all day. He promotes ambition, a strong willingness to help others, and a general enthusiasm in taking up various activities. But acquiring emotional equilibrium can be difficult, but ultimately rewards the person who practices it. This discipline, Ricard explains, is the "secret" to life-long happiness.

Enlightening book but with a few flaws, February 8, 2008
I think a lot of the other reviews clearly explain why this is a wonderful book. It definitely has added a lot of perspective to my outlook on things. I believe as Ricard explains, that tweaks to the way we think and our attitude will definitely foster happier thoughts in our minds. There are some very memorable thoughts from this book - the one I liked most was the fact that happiness can never be based on external circumstances for they are fleeting. A loss of a loved one or a job can plunge a man from happiness to despair and darkness in an instant. If like Ricard, you believe that happiness can be a permanent state of mind, it has to be on the inside and all ephemeral, external circumstances will flutter the mind like lines written on water.

But there are limitations and not-so-great things about the book which could have been improved.

- Too much quoting philosophers and famous people
Almost every chapter is filled with various philosopher's take on things like happiness, emotions etc. I was more interested in Ricard's own experience and his Gurus' opinions (which were also there at places) rather than a big collection of differing thoughts of other philosophers.

- Lack of explanation on 'how to do'
There is a clear lack of explanation of how to deal practically with the issues Ricard brings up. His theory that negative thoughts like hatred need antidotes like patience is great, but there is not much detail on how to cultivate them. Ricard says the solution is meditation, but how and what to exactly meditate on is short in content.
A recurring theme is that when say, you are very angry, look at the anger itself without attaching it to the target of the anger and meditate, and it will melt away. Look at the emotion itself without the object it is related to and it will melt away like 'snow under the sun'.
It sounds good to read but I find it tough to implement. While one is meditating, how is it possible to 'look' at something without giving it an image or a mental picture? How to 'look' at an abstract entity is mentioned nowhere in the book. Maybe it comes naturally to advanced spiritual practitioners, but for a layman like me, I need more explanation on how to do these things than just a vague paragraph and impressive metaphors.

In spite of these limitations, I found it an enlightening book to read.

a book that has helped true transformation in people I know (excuse the hyperbole), June 23, 2007
Here is an example of a message that I received from a friend who read Happiness...
"I'm flying. The two big things for me have been: While I know I'm a responsible person toward my friends and people I interact with, I hadn't recognized how much I had emotionally blocked out other people in general and the effect it was having on my mind. From a purely selfish perspective, I now see that the more I focus on empathizing with people who I have no connection with, the calmer and clearer my mind is and the happier I am. I didn't recognize the price I was paying for not wanting to empathize with people who don't have a direct bearing on my life.

Secondly, I hadn't really conceptualized the difference between pleasure and happiness. Upon reading it in Ricard's book, it was immediately apparent to me and I realize how much my emphasis on the former at the expense of the latter has been a mistake. I think I viewed emotionally being engaged with strangers and people "out there" in general as a distraction and waste of time, at best, but hadn't realized that all the time I was engaging with them, albeit in a negative way.

Guy, between 'The Joy of Living, Unlocking the Secrets and Science' and "Happiness" I'm now in a total blissed-out state. A couple of the things I've realized is that in terms of my own sustained happiness it's in my strong self-interest to try to be more compassionate toward people. Just starting to think that way has allowed me to exorcise a lot of petty conflicts and tensions that unnecessarily clutter my mind. I am so much calmer now. "

This book is VERY well worth reading. It is a must read for anyone who wants to reach beyond their material goals, and realizes that the underlying goal is happiness. It is written in a clear manner that seems to resonate with many readers.

The Need for Practice, March 30, 2008
This is just a footnote to the other reviews, especially the one that wants more of the "how" to implement the author's suggestions.
Ricard is one of the finest students of one of the finest teachers of the Tibetan tradition as is, for example, the very popular author Pema Ch�dr�n.
Ch�dr�n's books and "Happiness" by Ricard share the same characteristic: they make great inspirational reading BUT in the absence of a regular meditative discipline they remain only that.
There is a great abundance of excellent books (which by the way are not enough on their own), and there are even quite a lot of excellent teachers, who can guide one with regard to that regular practice.
Of course what "practice" is is something that must be investigated by you yourself. The many exercises found throughout Ricard's book, if assiduously undertaken, are material enough for a thorough familiarization with practice as I understand it.
I wish you the very best in your quest,
Richard Wrigley.

A deep and wide-ranging guide to building the happiness skill, November 19, 2007
Matthieu Ricard's subtitle reveals his premise - that 'achieving durable happiness as a way of being is a skill' (page 7). Although some people are happier than others, he notes, such happiness is not durable and complete.

How then is the skill of durable happiness achieved? Ricard - a Buddhist monk and both monk and son in the popular book The Monk and the Philosopher: A Father and Son Discuss the Meaning of Life - advocates ongoing mind training and the development of qualities including inner peace, altruistic love and mindfulness.

But this is not a Buddhist book so much as 'Buddhist in spirit' (page 14). It's written for 'anyone who aspires to a little more joie de vivre and to let wisdom and compassion reign in his or her life' (page 15).

As such, the book synthesizes ancient Buddhist wisdom with current research findings to offer a happiness program built on spiritual awareness, scientific knowledge and simple exercises. It explores conditions that support happiness - like a deep sense of wellbeing, wisdom, and love for fellow beings - and those that undermine it - including ignorance, mental toxins and disturbing emotions like desire, hatred and envy. In this way, it leads readers away from a life built on grasping for pleasure and self-absorption toward one of contentment and altruism.

In short:

Ricard's approach to cultivating happiness is deep but wonderfully wide-ranging. It takes findings from neuroscience, psychology, positive psychology, sociology and economics and ideas from philosophy and ethics, and presents them through a prism of ancient Buddhist wisdom. The result is a gentle, wise and motivating guide to happiness that spans suffering, death, emotions, time and ego.

Please note that all of Ricard's share in the book's proceeds go to humanitarian and educational projects in Tibet, Nepal, India and Bhutan.

As only a practicioner could say it...., July 11, 2007
This is an amazing book. The minute I finished, I started over again. This book is about the pathways to happiness as understood and explained by a Buddhist monk (Ricard). Ricard's explanations and insights are extremely valuable and practical. Even more, Ricard has consulted all the leading research associated with the "science of happiness."

This book is for anyone who believes that happiness is a learned behavior that requires daily practice. Its greatest strengths are its clearity, practical applications, and scientific base. It is a very rational approach to the subject of well-being. Plus, Ricard consults the leaders in the positive psychology movement-- a very good move.

Read this book if you truly want to be happier.

[...]

Thought provoking, September 27, 2006
Happiness - A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill covers so much territory.

This is my first introduction to Matthieu Ricard but woven in the book is the story of his life. Ricard traces his early adult life in France and a promising career in cellular genetics. A career he gave up to study Buddihism. He is now a Buddhist Monk and writes from that perspective.
There is no question that Buddhism has some valuable insights into what life is all about and how best to live a fulfilled life.

One of the most contrasting differences between Buddhism and Western society is the way we view death. For the most part, Western society deals with death in a very unsatisfactory manner. Buddhism on the other hand understand and accepts death as a normal and natural end to life. I think our society would be better off if we could handle death better.

There is another sharp difference in how Western society carries so much mental baggage throughout life, while the Buddhist work to clear their mind of guilt, resentment, hatred and other negative emotions. "What a relief it is for the burdened man who has long walked through the world of suffereing to lay down his heavy and useless load."

Although the book deals with some very deep and complex subject matter, it is well written and easy to understand. There is extensive citing of the source material in the appendix.

While the answer to so many of life's puzzles seem so clear, it is also clear that very few in Western society will ever dig deeply into these concepts. Unfortunately we are always looking for the quick fix. We seem to want to take a magic pill and make things right. Ricard shows us a way to achieve what ever human strives for. But it is very doubtful that many will be willing to make the changes necessary to achieve true happiness.

Wise & Enlightening, June 16, 2007
It is rare that I would read a book more than once (except when studying for exams decades ago), this is one of them & I'm keen to do so. By beautifully integrating wisdom from scientific, philosophical, & religious perspectives, Ricard has not simply offered me enlightening insight about what happiness is about, he also illustrated how one could lead a fulfilling & compassionate life. I look forward to learn more from Ricard, practice his advice, & lead my mind to where serenity resides. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This groundbreaking Pulitzer Prize-winning book sets the standard for interdisciplinary writing, exploring the patterns and symbols in the thinking of mathematician Kurt Godel, artist M.C. Escher, and composer Johann Sebastian Bach. ... Read more

Reviews

Way out of my comfort zone, but still great., June 2, 2000
I'm here to witness that even people as seriously math-challenged as I am can participate in this wonderful book. It took me a *long* time to read-- I flipped back and forth, beat the pages up, asked my more math-oriented friends for help. I spent forever trying to solve the MU exercise. It was worth it. I still feel like I understood parts of it only in intuitive flashes, but those flashes showed me a room more interesting than most of the well-lit chambers ordinary books provide.

Reading Godel, Escher, Bach is like joining a club. People who see you reading it will open spontaneous conversations and often gift you with unexpected insights. (I had a fascinating conversation with a total stranger about Godel's theorem.)

Wish I could give more than five stars.

A Profound Meditation On Human Creativity, October 1, 2000
G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid debates, beautifully, the question of consciousness and the possibility of artificial intelligence. It is a book that attempts to discover the true meaning of "self."

As the book introduces the reader to cognitive science, the author draws heavily from the world of art to illustrate the finer points of mathematics. The works of M.C. Escher and J.S. Bach are discussed as well as other works in the world of art and music. Topics presented range from mathematics and meta-mathematics to programming, recursion, formal systems, multilevel systems, self-reference, self-representation and others.

Lest you think G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, to be a dry and boring book on a dry and boring topic, think again. Before each of the book's twenty chapters, Hofstadter has included a witty dialogue, in which Achilles, the Tortoise, and friends discuss various aspects that will later be examined by Hofstadter in the chapter to follow.

In writing these wonderful dialogues, Hofstadter created and entirely new form of art in which concepts are presented on two different levels simultaneously: form and content. The more obvious level of content presents each idea directly through the views of Achilles, Tortoise and company. Their views are sometimes right, often wrong, but always hilariously funny. The true beauty of this book, however, lies in the way Hofstadter interweaves these very ideas into the physical form of the dialogue. The form deals with the same mathematical concepts discussed by the characters, and is more than vaguely reminiscent of the musical pieces of Bach and printed works of Escher that the characters mention directly in their always-witty and sometimes hilarious, discussions.

One example is the "Crab Canon," that precedes Chapter Eight. This is a short but highly amusing piece that can be read, like the musical notes in Bach's Crab Canon, in either direction--from start to finish or from finish to start, resulting in the very same text. Although fiendishly difficult to write, the artistic beauty of that dialogue equals Bach's music or Escher's drawing of the same name.

As good as all this is (and it really is wonderful), it is only the beginning. Other topics include self-reference and self-representation (really quite different). The examples given can, and often do, lead to hilarious and paradoxical results.

In playfully presenting these concepts in a highly amusing manner, Hofstadter slowly and gently introduces the reader to more advanced mathematical ideas, like formal systems, the Church-Turing Thesis, Turing's Halting Problem and G�del's Incompleteness Theorem.

G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, does discuss some very serious topics and it can, at times, be a daunting book to handle and absorb. But it is always immensely enjoyable to read. The sheer joy of discovering the puns and playful gems hidden in the text are a part of what makes this book so very special. Anecdotes, word plays and Zen koans are additional aspects that help make this book an experience that many readers will come to feel to be a turning point in their lives.

Like every other book written by Hofstadter, G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, has an index and a bibliography that must be noted as exceptionally well done.

Although filled with English wordplay, this book is in no way tied to the American origin of its author. For years, it was thought that G�del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, would be impossible to translate, but so far, it has successfully been translated into French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Swedish, Dutch and Russian.

A profound and beautiful meditation on human thought and creativity, this book is indescribably gorgeous and definitely one of a kind.

Escape from predestination, December 14, 1999
It seems highly appropriate that Douglas Hofstatder should re-release his epic work now. His central theme plays so eloquently in this place and time: Every system folds in on itself, be it physics, mathematics, or any form of language. All these systems are inherently self-referential, and as such, take on a life of their own. A life their creators could never imagine. Many reviewers have focused on the explicit messages of the book, their likes or dislikes, but the great beauty of this work lies within the realm of what it does not say. It is, no doubt, the most difficult book I have ever read, and I have to admit it took me several false starts to finally get through the thing. It is so incredibly deep - one cannot simply wade through it like a sci-fi novel. But if you take your time, spend, say about a year on it - work through the TNT exercises, discover the hidden messages the author has left, read the bibliography - and at some point it will strike you; the incredible richness of the message. The book, you, the world, all of it IS open. The pages of this universe are blank, unwritten. Dr. Hofstadter has woven a message of eternal optimism, one that transcends even the infinite depth to the tapestry of topics spread before us: The great freedom that we, nature's most remarkable matrix, are part of a future without destiny. Even if we were created, any purpose impressed upon us is lost in a cacophany of unexpected relationships. Deterministic, yet infinitely complex and unpredictable. We can never understand anything completely, and thus every life can experience the magic of observing that which cannot be explained. This is a book of wonders, and you will never regret the time you spent on it.

A worthwhile effort to read, January 9, 2001
I first read GEB some 20 years ago as a high school senior/college freshman. Even though I was a mathematically inclined physics major, an amateur classical musician, and a lightning-fast reader, the book still took me a year to finish. This is the sort of weighty tome where one reads a chapter, and then sets the book aside for awhile to let things settle in. It's no wonder that a poll by New Scientist magazine of highly-regarded scientists had to be rephrased as "EXCEPT for Godel Escher Bach, what scientific or technical book would you take to an uninhabited island?"

I will cheerfully confess that I cannot remember all of the details of the book, and that there were times when I simply couldn't get at what Hofstadter was trying to explain. Still, some of Hofstadter's writing has stayed with me the past two decades--his classic analogy of Godel's theorem with a stereo system, his discussion of the difficulties of creating an "accurate" translation (using the beginning of "Crime and Punishment"), his wondrous tying-together of math, music, and art. The totally math-phobic will find these, and many other concepts, readily accessible and even symbol-free. Wish I could say as much for some "general audience" philosophy books!

hasn't aged well..., October 6, 2002
When this book first came out, I, along with probably most mathematically and scientifically minded people of my generation, would certainly have considered it one of the best books ever written. Hofstadter has refined the task of writing a book into almost an art form. Drawing on the central theme of "strange loops" (ideas that loop back on themselves in a paradoxical manner, as might be seen in the art of M.C. Escher), Hofstadter successfully draws together ideas from a large variety of different human pursuits. An important idea--shown to be connected to other ideas in artificial intelligence, music, and art--is Godel's incompleteness theorem, which shows that there are limits on our ability to prove concepts that may, nevertheless, be true. This, too, is based on a "strange loop"--these loops seem to crop up everywhere and Hofstadter spends a lot of the book showing how they are pretty much fundamental to human knowledge.

However, after reading the new preface in this 20th anniversary edition, I'm left with the sense that this once great book is now merely good. For one thing, Hofstadter seems to have evolved from a brilliant young man with a lot of great ideas into a somewhat cantakerous middle-aged man. He seems angry at the New York Times, and his readers, for not fully understanding the central message of the book. Yet he also excuses himself from making any attempt to update the book or bring the ideas in line with many of the enormous changes that have happened over the last 20+ years. It seems surprising to me that Hofstadter would constrain his own book to having only one central message--surely he should understand that a book of this complexity will mean many things to many different people, and that indeed is the reason for its popularity.

So, I still highly recommend this book, but I'm left just a little disappointed that Hofstadter seems somewhat at war with his readers and as a result, won't attempt to update the book or try to help us reconcile the many events of the last 20 years with the themes of his book.

Brilliant and *still* misunderstood!, June 30, 2003
I've been reading reviews of GEB for years, and the most fascinating thing about them, aprt from the near-uniform enthusiasm of the readers, is that almost none of the enthusiatic readers have any idea of what the book is actually about! The typical reader seesm to think of GEB as a jouyous romp through any number of fascinating bits of logic, math and science without any idea as to what Hofstader's actually doing.

Yes, it's about Goedel, and recursion, and "strange loops", and linguistics Bach and ants and all that- but only trivially. The bulk of the book is taken up with what amounts to a very entertaining tutorial that sets the reader up for the real thesis of the book. What Hofstadter has attempted in GEB is nothing less than a concise, bottom-up theory of mind. You can read it as a theory of AI, or a theory of human intelligence, but either way he's telling you how to construct an intelligent entity.

True, he doesn't really have a theory of *how* a self-aware being should arise from his metaphorical anthill, but then, neither does anyone else. But he does have a very good story as to how intelligence does arise in such conditions.

If you've read this book before without understanding what his aim was, read it again, with that notion in mind. And if you haven't read it, and you're the sort of person who enjoys mathematic and scientific amusements of any sort, well, read it and discover how much fun a speculative theory can be.

A Golden Braid with Very Many Strands, June 5, 2006
GEB: an Eternal Golden Braid is a difficult book to explain. It's a book about strange loops, recursivity, paradox, number theory, formal systems, molecular biology, Zen Buddhism, impressionism, and fugues. These concepts are introduced through the works of mathematician Kurt G�del, artist M.C. Escher, and composer J.S. Bach, as well as some other supporting characters, like Charles Babbage (the first one to think of an Analytical Engine, a mechanical device for churning out algebraic theorems) and Alan Turing (of Turing Test fame). And then, of course, there are the dialogues, populated by the Greek warrior Achilles, a tortoise, a crab, and an anteater. Out of this confusing mess of concepts Hofstadter attempts to grapple with a truth he feels lies at the heart of Artificial Intelligence and Human Consciousness--that it forms from the same tangled hierarchies as G�del's Incompleteness proof or Escher's "Print Gallery" or Bach's "Canon per Tonos" (a theme that changes notes according to a fixed system that somehow always returns to its starting note, one octave higher in pitch).

Much of the book deals with formal systems--meaningless symbol-shunting procedures for producing theorems from axioms--and the way they are mapped on to "truths" about the world (what Hofstadter calls "isomorphisms"). One of the most extensively used formal system in the book is called TNT, for `typographical number theory' (also one in a series of Hofstadter puns, as TNT, when joined with a process called G�del Numbering, tends to self-destruct), which is just a new way of expressing simple number-theoretical truths (such as the commutativity and associativity of addition; i.e., b+c=c+b and b+(c+d)=c+(b+d)). On the surface, formal systems seem utterly trivial. Hofstadter introduces them as a theatre on which strange loops emerge. Strange loopiness enters formal systems when they can express Epimenide's paradox, a single sentence that reads "This sentence is untrue." Hofstadter explains how this realization came to pass when a German mathematician named Kurt G�del discovered inconsistencies in Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica", a treatise meant to banish self-reference in set and number theories. Any formal system capable of expressing all number-theoretical truths can also be used to represent itself through a system of G�del Numbering, which is just a way of interpreting symbols in the formal system as large numbers. Any formal system powerful enough to represent itself through G�del Numbering can make the statement "There is no theorem with G�del Number G'", where G' is the G�del number for that statement. In other words, a powerful formal system will inevitably make claims that are paradoxical, inconsistent whether you call them true or false.

Hofstadter combines the strange loopiness of formal systems with the concept of isomorphisms to come to some conclusions about human consciousness. First, he claims that the brain has a formal system for representing concepts in the world that exhibits self-reference and self-modification in a tangled hierarchy, just like the simplified formal systems he introduces in the book, Escher illustrates, and Bach incorporates into his music. He takes his time making his case, ending each chapter with a dialogue between Achilles and a Tortoise, a convention Zeno used to prove the impossibility of motion, and Lewis Carroll burrowed in his Two-Part Invention. These dialogue's are usually esoteric and highly amusing, including a series on Achilles' record player and one of the Tortoise's records designed explicitly to create vibrations that destroy the record player. This is a parallel to the explosive self-repudiation of TNT--any record player that can produce a high fidelity representation of the magnetic strips on the record will destroy itself, and any record player that can't is useless as a record player. Another dialogue introduces an anteater who converses with an ant colony that is collectively cognizant, even if each individual ant isn't (a parallel to meaning arising from meaningless formal systems of neuron representations in the human mind). In the main text, Hofstadter introduces the reader to the computer languages of Bloop, Floop, and Gloop (Gloop is just theoretical, a self-altering program reminiscent of the tangled hierarchy of the human mind), simple programs designed to reproduce themselves (an analogue to strings of DNA that encode for DNA synthesizing enzymes), and the Zen concept of MU (where neither `yes` or `no` suffice, say MU, or `unask the question`).

Fans of M.C. Escher will want to take another look at his "Print Gallery", a picture of a man looking at a picture of a town that contains the gallery the man is in, and the picture he's looking at. This is a tangled bit of self-reference has a blemish at the lower right-hand corner of the picture frame (the picture frame in the print, which is in the center of the print). In this blemish M.C. Escher writes his signature, but Hofstadter points out that the "blemish" is an inescapable side-effect of the self reference. No consistent image could appear in that blemish, just as no consistent interpretation of Epimenide's paradox is correct. Human's don't have privileges access to the formal system of their representations of the world--the inviolate level of human consciousness is off-limits to our perception. "From this balance between self-knowledge and self-ignorance comes the feeling of free will (p. 713)," says Hofstadter. This is the central idea of his book. Formal systems are ubiquitous, and powerful formal systems exhibit tangled hierarchies. The human mind is no exception, and the "blemish" of human consciousness is that inevitable bit of self-ignorance that gives us free-will. By breaking it down to the saliencies of a formal system, Hofstadter has high regard for the prospects of Artificial Intelligence, which ought to be able to build upon a similar edifice.

This is a difficult book to read and understand. It's deeply compelling and reads differently each time. I recommend it to those who have a lot of time on their hands.

Many dialogues make light reading, December 1, 2005
You might have been recommended this by a friend, or come across web recommendations. Almost everyone gives it more than 5 stars! But...
you can think of many reasons why you do NOT want to read this. There is lots of maths (it is a book about maths!?), it is loved by geeks, and it seems to cover too many things (consciousness, intelligence, reductionism, holism, recursion, self and soul!)...

You don't know if you want to start on an epic 700 page book about abstruse stuff right now. Perhaps later.

Hold it! You can enjoy this book just because of the brilliant writing, the puzzles and wordplay that make it a dream of Renaissance-style writing. The Rule of Four, Hypnerotomachia, Name of the Rose etc can't match this brilliance.

I suggest a really easy way to start this book: Read a dialogue. Each chapter has an opening dialogue: Tortoise and Achilles and a few others spar; their verbal wizardry opens up new worlds; each is set to music, imitating the style of a Bach piece so closely you can almsot hear the music while you read. The main chapters discuss the serious stuff seriously. A typical dialogue is less than 5 pages; so give it a quick try NOW.... see if you enjoy the heady mix of literature, puzzles and deep stuff!

My favourite is Crab Canon.. this was the first bit written, the whole book was written around it. Crabs (supposedly) walk backwards; see the illustrations (Escher's art, Bach's score, both called Carb Canon) upside down, and then .. read the dialogue backwards.
Here it is: http://www.barryland.com/canon.html

Or try "Sonata by Unaccompanied Achilles": this has a couple of lovely little puzzles.
http://www.rdegraaf.nl/index.asp?sND_ID=141084

Or, ... oh! there's so many little gems to recommend.

And if you like the first dialogue you read, get the book. Then read the preface, and then read the dialogues - in order - and skip the chapters .. till later.
That makes it a great fun read.. and a short book in itself!

Then having enjoyed yourself, read from the beginning and enjoy the whole thing afresh... at yor own pace. I read the dialogues quickly, and absorbed the book over a year, solving word and logic puzzles, tripping over imagery and more ...

So, have fun with this great book. It might change your life, as it did mine.

Down the Rabbit Hole..., May 17, 2007
This is a difficult book.

Difficult to read. Difficult to understand. And, I'm finding, difficult to review. What's it about? Good question. The author, himself, isn't very clear on this point, describing it as "a metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll." I'm not sure I can do better than that. I will tell you this, however: if the book has a "point," it does seem to be that man's consciousness is ultimately mechanical and, therefore, that there is no reason that machines cannot finally be intelligent in the same sense that man is. (And, in fact, be as man in just about every internal way.)

While I take issue with this conclusion, and some of Hofstadter's reasoning along the way, I don't think that my debating his points is the basis on which a prospective reader should decide whether or not to pick up this book. Instead, the prospective reader should know: that this is a lengthy and deep work. It will take a *long* time to read properly, and most readers should not read more than a chapter a day. Many of the sections, and especially the various dialogues that preface the chapters, are quite clever. (These dialogues are usually between Achilles and the Tortoise, of Zeno's paradoxes, and their friends.) Some of the chapters grow incredibly technical. The subject matters vary, wildly and rapidly, and there will be points in reading where you will question your investment.

In the end, you will feel good for having pushed through the hard bits. It will coalesce, more or less, into a whole. Whether you finally agree with Hofstadter's conclusions or not, you'll have learned much and thought about important topics you might otherwise not have.

A good book, certainly not for everyone... but, if you're the "right" audience--someone deeply interested in questions of intelligence, mathematics, computer science and free will, and possessed of a bit of an ironic sense of humor--then this book cannot be recommended highly enough.

Five stars, for the work it represents, and the doors it opens to the reader.

Remember: We're in Planesville, January 22, 2004
I give this book high marks. The read is difficult, I concede. However, remember that in order to make progress, oftentimes we must take a leap of faith. The book even argues that proving something to be true requires you to "just believe" because logic eventually runs out upon deconstruction. See chapter VII.

I have had similar trouble that others report. I have had to re-read parts to make sure I get his points, whether I agree or not. And yes, he conveys his ideas in what some may consider an offhand way. There is much value in the saying, "To be great is to be misunderstood."

You dont have to like this book. Just make sure you're certain why you do or don't like it. Is it because the Hof doesn't know what he is talking about, or because he "wastes" your time with his lingo and fictional prancing about? Or is it because there's a chance that you don't understand? I am not condescending readers who don't like GEB, but we too often rate someone's ideas based on our inability to understand and yes, sometimes be entertained immediately. Don't expect him to do all the work. What are you bringin' to the party?

This book is challenging. Once you have spent enough time with it, you might see that it requires you to challenge your understanding of things, take that leap of faith (it's not all about logic), suspend judgment, then see what you think when you get to the other side. Consider the section devoted to the topic of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry:

Euclid of Alexandria perfected the art of rigor in his Elements, becoming arguably the most influential mathematician in times of antiquity. He made a most convincing case for the accuracy and truthfulness of much of the fundamental geometry we know today. He did so by using five principals upon which to base the remainder of his volumes of assertion. Four of the five principles were based on truths quite simple and so understandable, for the most part we hold them to be self-evident. One of those (the first) was the notion of a straight line, as simple and direct as connecting point A to point B.

His work seemed universal, truthful, and beyond reproach, especially considering the painstaking efforts he went to prove the seemingly most basic of concepts. This all seemed well and good, until others, implicitly or otherwise, began to question the notion or suggest what a different version of what a straight line is. In other words: What if there was more than one type of straight line? How could this be?

To make a long story only slightly longer, we find that there in fact IS more than one type of straight line (what's the difference between a straight line drawn on a piece of paper and a straight line drawn on a basketball? hmmmm....), which spawned elliptical and spherical geometries. Turns out that Euclidean geometry is actually a subset of geometry, not the entire geometry. All these years we thought that a piece of the pie was the whole pie.

The point here is that you must endeavor to see outside what you know to be true. It's not always comfortable or seemingly conceivable, but we must accept a degree of uncertainty before we can realize a new level of certainty.

Give the book a shot. Maybe two. Suspend your judgment and take the hit. You'll see. Regards. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case
against religion. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos. With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry
of the double helix. ... Read more

Reviews

From someone who's actually read the book!, May 14, 2007
After looking through some of the other customer reviews found here, I was dismayed by the amount of "blog-style" entries: that is, people who may have only glanced at the title or saw Hitchens promoting the book on CNN or YouTube and decided to just speak up, either in support or condemnation. However, if you're curious about the book and just want to know what to expect, may I humbly offer some actual information?

Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, author of books too numerous to mention and contributor to smaller magazines such as Free Inquiry, adds to the recent renaissance of pro-atheist books with his own provocatively-titled contribution. Whereas Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason) sees dire warnings and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion offers a defense of science, Hitchens uses his long experience in journalism to illustrate the madness that results when faith is unchallenged by reason. Dawkins has been criticized for adopting a harsh tone (an assessment I disagree with), but Hitchens is the one who really pours on the anger and witty derision. Some sample chapter titles make it clear he's playing for keeps:

Chapter two: "Religion Kills"

Chapter Four: "The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False"

Chapter Seven: "Revelation: The Nightmare of the Old Testament"

Chapter Eight: "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One"

Chapter Nine: "The Koran is Borrowed From Both Jewish and Christian Myths"

That should give you a pretty good idea of the tone, but the chapter titles prove to be no mere cheap provocations. Drawing on decades (if not centuries) of scholarship that exposes the cobbled-together recipes for the holy books of the three "great" monotheisms, he shows them to be products of a violent time when scientific information about the world was unavailable and most people were entirely illiterate. He then gives modern day examples of how these myths have been put to horrendous use (yes, 9/11 is mentioned). In one section, he revisits the sins of "Agnes Bojaxhiu, an ambitious Albanian nun who had become well-known under the nom de guerre of 'Mother Teresa'," which he covered at greater length in his previous controversial expose The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, and reiterates how the "miracles" ascribed to her are so slap-dash and false they're almost comical.

While he devotes much of his outrage at "the big three" (my phrase), he also offers a chapter titled "There Is No 'Eastern' Solution," which would have to find disagreement with Sam Harris, who argues that many of the spiritual practices of Buddhism, shorn of their supernatural trappings, could be beneficial. Hitchens, ever the realist, wants us to know that history doesn't bear these claims out.

Hitchens often delivers his ideas like he's trying to splash his martini across your face at a party--at one point he muses "Why do people keeep saying, 'God is in the details'? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure and incompetence"--and the result is often thrilling reading. His vitriol can be unnerving sometimes, like when he asks "Is Religion Child Abuse?", not to mention the full title of his tome. Never trust a book that splashes the word "everything" on its cover; it's usually a sign that the author is either desperate or foolishly grandiose. After reading the book, I don't think Hitchens is either, but in his worst moments he shows symptoms. In any event, I'm sure he doesn't intend this to be a work of (pardon the phrase) "evangelism"--he doensn't hope to influence even the mildly religious--but like that martini in the face (followed, perhaps, by an olive to the noggin), he wants to deliver a wake-up call. Some may see only a plea for attention, but he would quickly redirect you the the world outside.

And thus he spake..., August 5, 2007
My favorite part of the book is the last third. By that time Hitchens has made his arguments about how Religion Poisons Everything and is now rebutting the best intellectual arguments against his thesis. What would become of human decency, morality and ethics without religion? How do you address the inherent human need to believe in something and take comfort in a higher power? What are the god-less alternatives and aren't those institutions as bad or worse? Doesn't religion provide stability to society by pacifying individuals in times of darkness and uncertainty? It is hard to sum things up and provide sound bytes about something as complex as religion, but my take-away from this book is that any religion (by design) has the ingredients of becoming totalitarian, when successful; and totalitarianism of any kind leads to ultimate power corruption.

Hitchens makes his arguments and rebuts the best counter-arguments with passion and panache. If you are amongst the majority of people in the world - believers - his irreverent sense of humor may lead you to immediately brush him off as a partisan hack; while the unbelievers will get a kick out of each of the thousands of punchlines that Hitchens artfully mumbles. However, if you belong to the third category - an intellectual who chooses to look beyond a bi-polar view of the world when it comes to religion - I would urge patience with Hitchens' indulgence as a genius linguist (when you have it, it is hard not to flaunt it!) and you will find this book extremely rewarding and will not go un-satiated. If you are seriously debating the merits and demerits of religion as an institution in the society we live in, you have glanced at the perfect place, no matter what your affiliations.

If you are looking for education on the various major religions in the world, their origin, history, interconnection, impact, popularity, etc.; this is NOT the right book for you. The book presupposes basic knowledge about these topics, and on several occasions I felt that I lacked the prior knowledge to appreciate many nuances in Hitchens' arguments.

Hitchens is no economist, and he does not get into numbers and measurements. But Hitchens is a seasoned intellectual, and does utter the voice of reason grounded in the sound principles of philosophical debate. His knowledge and wisdom about religion are comparable (arguably) with "good" reverends and pastors. The book is written in commentary style, but does have a semi-structured flow to it.

Just like this book lashes out at totalitarianism in the form of religion, I wish someone writes a book lashing out at totalitarianism in its other most ugly form in the modern world - Nationalism.

a necessary reactionary voice (with some qualifications), July 9, 2007
I am not suprised that religious people are offended by this book as Hitchens' language can (at times) be aggressive and polarizing when describing the believers of a given faith. To call all believers of a religion thoughtless imbeciles or to call them just plain stupid seems to me out of hand. However, as I read some of the half-baked religious apolagetics being written in the one or two star reviews of his book, perhaps Hitchens was not out of hand at all. (As a side note, to the reviewer who wrote "Christopher Hitchens is NOT great", you are truely an ignorant moron who has only strengthened the resolve of 'unbelievers' with your blind, hypocritical and borderline racist remarks. The very fact that you accept all the criticisms Hitchens had to offer about Islam but you object to his critique of 'us' "civilized Christians" (as you put it) only reveals your blind prejudice.)

I think many (if not all) of Hitchens arguments have been presented in the past but as the spectre of religious fundamentalism rises in our modern society perhaps an "anti-theist" revival is in order as well. Though I have to say that Hitchens' random derision of 'multiculturalists' (like Karen Armstrong) because they are too soft on the behaviour of religious people or because they are too sensitive to the beliefs of a given people seems to be counter-productive at best. We live in a diverse society which relies on mutual respect for other peoples cultural beliefs. Reviving a kind of soft Jacobin anti-clericalism does not really seem feasible (or desirable)in this day and age.

Read and buy this book, especialy at the price they are selling it for, but if you are not really interested then read some Voltaire, Hume or Nietszche instead.

Reason prevails, July 8, 2007
Christopher Hitchens, in his hard-hitting and revealing new book, "god is not Great", has found the courage to say what so many of us have thought for a long time...religion is its own curse and has been a plague endured by millions for centuries. With science and reason as his guide, Hitchens debunks just about everything from god and the Bible to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mother Teresa and more... and he does it with a breathtaking panache. It's the best book on this subject I've ever read.

No mere bystander when it comes to faith, Hitchens recounts his own associations with religion and how he moved to his current intense feelings about the topic. As a lapsed Christian who has moved towards atheism, I found myself concurring with just about everything he says. Not content to simply disagree with the faith-based crowd, Hitchens lambastes them. Good for him. The chapters in this book are all relevant to 2007 and some really stand out. One chapter entitled "A Note on Health", gets this book going full steam and another one toward the end, "Is Religion Child Abuse?", cuts to the quick. The Catholic Church, to Hitchens's credit, comes under scathing attack...I wish he had written even more about the abuses that this institution has caused.

Hitchens warns about secularism, too, (citing non-religious movements such as Fascism and Communism and the immense suffering they have inflicted). But it is religion itself that Hitchens finds almost intolerable. He closes by saying "religion has run out of justifications...it no longer offers an explanation of anything important". Bull's-eye! Religion should be in the business of putting itself out of business.

"god is not Great" is an important book in large part because it demonstrates convincingly that science has trumped religion and continues to, everytime. The depth which Hitchens tackles religion and its ramifications is matched by a compelling narrative style that has become the author's "signature". I highly recommend this book for its courage to tell the truth.

Intelligent discourse on religion with an appropriately embittered slant., July 9, 2007
I have never read a book that so matter-of-factly and flawlessly made its argument seem the only possible point-of-view. This book could possibly be the most important and relevant piece of literature written in the past decade. Christopoher Hitchens so effortlessly weaves a tale of religion's many downfalls that it sometimes seems as if his subject has done the research for him. In a world where people who look inward for strength are ridiculed, persecuted and often brutally abused, raped or murdered by those who look toward the sky for guidance and find solace in cartoon-logic, this book serves as a beacon of hope for those, like myself, who sometimes feel weakened beneath the burden of Mankind's history of savagery. I bought this book as soon as I heard it had been written and every page has been incredible. The writing style might be a bit too literate for some, which has already - in the case of certain neo-religious talking heads, Denis Prager for example - lead to bad reviews by means of excluding some for its readership, but the patient or already well-read (open-minded) audience will find it a delightful read.

I'll end with one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals."

Very readable, erudite dismissal of theistic pretensions, August 7, 2007
Part of the recent effusion of bestsellers providing an explanation of the underpinnings of the atheist / secularist worldview, Hitchens' book approaches the subject from a different angle; and it deserves space on your shelf. This book concentrates on dispelling the moral and utilitarian pretensions of theism rather than engaging in a detailed analysis of why their specific claims about the universe at large lack support. Hitchens' style, unlike that of Dawkins or Harris, for instance, emphasizes argument-by-anecdote. He tells stories about people and events which he links up to social movements, political events or philosophical principles. This makes his book eminently readable, especially for newcomers to the subject. Still, he can be quite galvanizing, to say the least; so I would hesitate to make this a book club selection for people I do not know well.

Hitchens' book provides what I think of as "cocktail party atheism" rather than the more rigorous argumentation presented by others, e.g., by Dawkins, Dennett or Ehrman in their books. As such, Hitchens' book, while entertaining and educational, does not lessen the value of reading the wider body of secularist literature.

Now what ?, August 6, 2007
Hitchens has brilliantly and logically articulated what the many (though relatively small) who share his view have long felt. Religion is so entrenched in our and the world's culture that there is little hope that anything can change despite the reasoned thinking of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. What a shame.

God is not Great, August 6, 2007
Hitchens has produced a book which is both timely and scholarly. Scholarly that is in the sense that he has read widely and has had hands on experience with a number of cults and religions, and timely in that the world seems currently to be polarizing into fundamentalism as against atheism. His arguments are well reasoned and supported and will appeal to the faithful, but of course men convinced against their will are of the same opinions still. At times I found the text inclining to the discursive, although this is being somewhat ungenerous, and certaily worth a second reading.

Believers Are Missing Out, June 28, 2007
Believers are missing a lot by not reading Hitchens' book. You should not let that title, "God is not Great," spook you. Pretend that the title is something more appropriate. In my opinion, for instance, a better title might have been "Religion is a Many-Splendored Thing," because the book is really more about religion than about anybody's god.

I can sincerely recommend this work to the faithful--of whatever faith--but especially to Christians. As a Christian, though I was a studious one, I never realized how much about my faith, and about the Bible, my teachers and pastors were not telling me (and may very well not have known themselves). I later learned much of this omitted data on my own, and this is largely the information you will acquire by reading Hitchens' book. It is a bonanza of fascinating facts.

Contrary to what you may have heard, Hitchens does not try to persuade you that there is no supreme being. Rather, he explains things you've probably wondered about but didn't know where to go for the answers. For instance, he explains why God hates ham; he shows that the Muslims' "Koran" is largely just a ripoff of the Old and New Testaments; and he makes miracles more understandable for doubters.

If there is one book--besides the Bible, of course--that I would recommend to most Christians, I think this is it. And if you're not much of a reader, I hope you'll at least read Chapter 18, "A Finer Tradition."

Don't believe everything you've been told about Hitchens' book. Don't knock it 'til you've read it!

God is not Great, July 8, 2007
You need to read this book by Christopher Hitchens. "God is not Great" is a terrible name for this brilliant journalists book. If you are looking for a new enlightenment of truth not faith, then this book is for you. I am not atheists, agnositic yes. Hitchens makes a ultimate case against religion and a more secular approach to life. You will come away with more than when you arrived. Chet Zaremba, Fort Lauderdale, Fl. ... Read more

Editorial Review

LDS Scriptures for Kindle contains a vast collection of LDS related scriptures, study guides, hymns, and documents - more than any other offered through the Kindle store.

All content has been professionally formatted for the Kindle to enhance readability and provide you with the best experience possible. You can quickly and easily find any scripture or document using our unique "drill-down" hierarchy. Just like in a normal bound version of the scriptures, you pick a volume, then book, then chapter, and optionally a verse to jump directly to an individual verse.

Content includes the entire LDS Standard Works and manuals for optional courses, leaders, and the family. Song books (hymns and children's), study resources, and other guides are also included.

Included Content:

Standard Works:
• Old Testament
• New Testament
• Book of Mormon
• Doctrine & Covenants
• Pearl of Great Price

Study Helps:
• Bible Dictionary
• Topical Guide
• Guide to the Scriptures
• Index to the Triple Combination

Songs:
• Hymns (includes optional verses)
• Children's Songbook (includes actions)

Resources:
• LDS Gems, Inspiration Quotes (over 150 topics)
• Faith in God (Girls & Boys)
• For the Strength of Youth
• True to the Faith
• Guidebook for Parents and Leaders of Youth
• Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders' Guidebook
• Family Guidebook
• Addiction Recovery Program
• Strengthening Marriage
• Strengthening the Family

Misc.:
• Family Proclamation
• The Living Christ
• Lectures on Faith ... Read more

Reviews

At First Review, October 14, 2009
After reviewing the available LDS scripture inventory for the Kindle, I selected this product. At first review today, I am quite pleased with the format, layout, and navigational ability. Of course I will have to see how they work in actual performance, in Church under quick "find and read" timetables, but then I am well past the need to have a scripture blast. I recommend it to anyone who is concerned about the content and format. After a bit of time in use, I will come back and provide further input. Well done, guys.

This is the one for you!!!, January 6, 2010
We bought both sets of scriptures on the kindle, I blame my wife of course, and this one navigates nicely. You can select chapter and verse which is always nice when the teacher states the scripture and then just reads. Also, the dictionary and topical guide are very helpful and also nagigate nicely. Dont penny pinch and try and save a buck by buying the other one. You will just get frustrated and end up with this one anyways.

Cross-referencing needed, January 27, 2010
At first look, I liked that one could get to the Book, Chapter, Verse and such. I was disappointed that there was no cross-referencing annotations and links. I wanted to use my Kindle at church because of the larger screen and font size options. The program available for my Palm PDA has the features, ease, and cross-referencing capability that I require but, a smaller screen and font size. I also prefer to clarify a verse by reading the JST version. The links would make this more possible. I hope someone will figure out how to mesh the technology and make it available. I will use the Kindle version of the additional documents that came with this purchase but, will use the "Mark My Scriptures" version on my Palm for Scripture study. I also hope that Amazon will make available more reference materials used at church; Gospel Doctrine Study Guides and the current RS lesson manual for example.

Easy to Navigate, January 9, 2010
This version has book, chapter and verse navigation that works well. I bought this one after getting frustrated with the other one. Much better.

Hold off buying for a few weeks, August 27, 2010
I have had problems with this product and have reported the difficulties to Amazon. Seems others have had the same problem with the book freezing up, and locking up the entire Kindle. The search function freezes up, and if it works at all, takes many minutes to go to the page you want. Other times, it just freezes, and I've had to completely reboot Kindle to get out of the book, and I've also had to archive the book, or the entire list of Kindle books in my table of contents has become unreadable. Amazon advises they have contacted the publisher, to figure out the problems. As of 8/25/10, I would hold off buying this, and asking the Kindle people at Amazon from time to time, to find out if the bug has been fixed. Otherwise, I can't wait to get the product back - beats the heck out of hauling that big kahuna of a quad combination to church all the time, and the search function (when it first worked) was just fine.

How Scripture Study Was Meant To Be, June 13, 2010
This version of the LDS Scriptures for Kindle is gorgeous, for lack of a better word. The indexing and links provide easy navigation, and the highlighting and note-taking features of the Kindle are perfect for this product.

This is definitely worth the price. The incredible format, and synchronization with Kindle's OS makes this version of the LDS Standard Works essential in the library of every Kindle-owning Latter-day Saint.

However, because of its large size, it may take quite a while to index it all. I would plug your kindle in overnight after downloading to prevent the Kindle from freezing. This happened to me a few times, but that's what happens when you try to index so many pages at once.

5 stars, and a must-have for every LDS with a kindle.

LDS Scriptures on Kindle, September 25, 2010
It is great. I just bought the LDS scriptures after trying to use the PDF formats. I originally wanted the Kindle because my scriptures were getting worn and I wanted a new set. I would often take my quad, priesthood manual, ensign, and note pad to church. I loathed carrying it all around and sorting through my scripture case and trying to hold it all. It was beyond annoying. The PDF files weren't what I needed but only after ten minutes I was sold. I can scroll through quickly and think it will be perfect for class. I think that a person adapt at text messaging will find it easier to navigate quickly. I can get to where I need to be probably as fast as in the paper version of the scriptures. It has so many extra things aswell. It has hymns with no music, family proclamation adn other materials. It is great. I am very excited and would say that it is the best purchase I've made in the last few months. If only missionaries were allowed to have something like this. I recommend this strongly for anyone who can text well. I also have also transferred PDF files of Preach My Gospel and the Ensign. I plan on using those versions with my paper scriptures for home scripture study seeing as the Kindle version doesn't have footnotes with cross-references. I'm also planning on converting my patriarchal blessing, priesthood lineage, and anything else I usually kept in my scripture case to my Kindle to use whenever I need to.

Very good, but I could not use Kindle's search feature, February 7, 2010
In general this was a very good buy. I like the fact that you can navigate easily through the chapters, and verses of each book. I may not use it a lot on Church, for having the real book in hand makes it easier to turn quickly to a reference. But what a handy thing to have when traveling!
The only real problem is that I have not been able to use Kindle's search feature to quickly find specific references. The feature works on all my other downloads, but not this one. Reading some of the comments about Kindle, I learned that with large collections it sometimes takes 10-15 minutes to index them. But I left mine running for hours, and it still did not seem to index. I simply get the message that "Your search can not be completed as this itme has not been indexed. Please try again later."
If anyone can help me on this, I would appreciate it.

Not a full set of scriptures, but..., September 24, 2010
but it is OK. They are nice for reading, but not for studying, as there are NO cross references. All the other material is nice, and good to have. A bit too pricey. I think that it is probably the best set for Kindle. This set is not good for class. It is a lot faster to flip pages than to go through all the tables of content. That plus the slow refresh rate of the Kindle and how long it takes to move the cursor make navigating these scriptures a time consuming task.
It is nice to have as backup scriptures and a good resource to have, if my Kindle is with me, when not at church. It sure beats having a 'quad' in your backpack.

Navigation leaves a lot to be desired, July 7, 2010
To begin with, I have read the other reviews and comprehend that this kindle edition is the most navigable available. However, I attempted to use this edition at efy as a reference, and found it wanting. I am very slow at paper lookup compared to most, but am still faster at it than navigating the kindle edition.

Comparing lookup times with the touch/iphone version, it must be said that that version is much superior, mostly because of refresh rates, and touch speed. Because the kindle has it's screen, with all its flaws as well as benefits, the search mechanism needs to be optimised. If not, your best option for search is goto index (5 keypresses), page over and down to book (another 7-8 keypresses, if you hold down to get to the end of the index page more quickly), another few, maybe another 7-8 to get to the chapter link, and a few page-overs to get to the verse. Considering refresh rate, Not Optimal. Perhaps about 10-30 seconds longer than the slowest paper lookup. If you plan on using this as a reference rather than a read-through text, so you don't have to carry around your actual scriptures, go buy a touch instead.

also, the lack of cross referencing is a pain, although i'm sure it would take forever to create a fully hyperlinked set of scriptures and indices. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Thirty years of "crisis," mass unemployment, and flagging growth, and they still want us to believe in the economy. . . . We have to see that the economy is itself the crisis. It's not that there's not enough work, it's that there is too much of it.
—from The Coming Insurrection

The Coming Insurrection is an eloquent call to arms arising from the recent waves of social contestation in France and Europe. Written by the anonymous Invisible Committee in the vein of Guy Debord—and with comparable elegance—it has been proclaimed a manual for terrorism by the French government (who recently arrested its alleged authors). One of its members more adequately described the group as "the name given to a collective voice bent on denouncing contemporary cynicism and reality." The Coming Insurrection is a strategic prescription for an emergent war-machine to "spread anarchy and live communism."

Written in the wake of the riots that erupted throughout the Paris suburbs in the fall of 2005 and presaging more recent riots and general strikes in France and Greece, The Coming Insurrection articulates a rejection of the official Left and its reformist agenda, aligning itself instead with the younger, wilder forms of resistance that have emerged in Europe around recent struggles against immigration control and the "war on terror."

Hot-wired to the movement of '77 in Italy, its preferred historical reference point, The Coming Insurrection formulates an ethics that takes as its starting point theft, sabotage, the refusal to work, and the elaboration of collective, self-organized forms-of-life. It is a philosophical statement that addresses the growing number of those—in France, in the United States, and elsewhere—who refuse the idea that theory, politics, and life are separate realms.

Intervention series
Distributed for Semiotext(e) ... Read more

Reviews

Scary--NOT because of their plan, but because of their analysis of current events., October 22, 2010

All talk, no work, May 31, 2010
I personally believe in the ideals of anarchy, peace, equality, and so on. Ideals do not exist in the actual world. But I am against all authority, all governments, and robber barons, etc. However, if I work all day to chop fire wood, carry water and hunt, gather or harvest food, I have earned it. I do not owe you half - or any of the fruits of my labor. If you have been laying in the shade all day writing about equality and re-distribution of resources and so on and you try to take what I have earned with my own blood sweat and tears, then we will fight and I will win. I'll win because I'm stronger because I do honest work while you grow soft in your leisure. I'll win because bu necessity I have sharpened my wits, my ingenuity, my instincts, reflexes and so on because I have survived the survival game while you got high and sat around.

Here's my point. I have lived with plenty of people like the author(s) of this book. Talking and debating is one thing but when it comes to ACTUAL WORK, I have found (by personal experience) that 9 out of 10 of them will do ANYTHING other than honest work or even pick up their own garbage or clean a dish.

My peers - anarchists, "peace" people, "commune" people, "drainbows", hippies, Deadheads, etc. have great ideals but are far too soft, weak, lazy, selfish and naive to make any alternative society actually work.

Whether I agree or disagree with their ideals and goals is irrelevant to actual reality. The reality is that if you start a commune with 100 voluntary members, soon 10 good hard working people are going to leave because they can't possibly do all the work for the 90 other people who will sit around, try anything to get high, leave garbage around, never clean their own messes, etc. I am not speaking hypothetically. I have lived in such situations and it is just as predictable as any group of primates. Most people will avoid earning their share, even if it means that others will have to carry their weight. If they have dreadlocks, wear tie-die, go shoeless, sell crystal wraps or mushrooms on Phish lot, etc. they are actually even MORE likely to be be allergic to work than if they look like a "member of Babylon".

In these communal, non-authoritarian social experiments, once the food or drugs run out (about 24 hours), these people will quickly resort to charlatanism, theft, cheating, or any other means of getting food, drugs or money as long as it does not require honest work. Actual work is always avoided at all costs.

To the author(s) and similar persons I say don't just day-dream and write books (you miss-educated bourgeois wimps) and then live off the book sales. Start a commune, a farm, a village or something and DO THE WORK, yes, that's right, WORK, do actual LABOR, earn your food, your water, your warmth and shelter, make your own clothes, dig your own pits to poops in, and so on. It is likely you will crawl back home to mommy and daddy after one night, but if you happen to be the rare exception and achieve success at creating and sustaining a commune, and if after some years it still works and you have learned to recognize and eliminate leaches then - only then - write a book about it.

I recommend reading but not paying for this book. Paying for this book is just giving a handout to the author(s). Where I live, there are plenty of clean, well-fed hippie students who stand on corners with their hats out for money because mommy and daddy don't give them a big-enough allowance or maybe because they have to pay for their own food. Poor babies. I won't give them money because I am too busy working to earn my own money. For the same reason, I recommend that you do not give these lazy, whiny, weaklings your money for their book.

If I sound somewhat irrationally angry in this review it is due to real-world experience with such people.

Revolution Already Underway, August 16, 2010

Stupifying, pointless, and badly written, June 10, 2010

Sincere, if immature, theorizing, August 31, 2010
A manifesto on changing life as we know it. The authors' charges against corruption, stress, social anomie, etc., are well taken, but their solution(s) are inconsistent, contradictory, poorly thought out, and based more on ideological certainty than lived reality. All ideologies are forms of intellectual dishonesty, so to embrace an ideology is to erase ambiguities and feel certain that all questions, past and future, have already been answered. It's hard not to be self-deceptive in such a mind set.

Disturbing philosophy book/how to book, May 9, 2010
Short, concise and to the disturbing realistic future that may be at our doorstep if we fail to act immediately. That was an opinion, not an endorsement of the ideas presented in this book.

Goodbye Civilization, Hello Barbarism, Anarchy & Other Utopian Garbage, July 10, 2009
I'd heard that this was a very scary book. The French government had even jailed the members of the Invisible Committee of authors for Terrorism. I found the book incredibly na�ve. The most surprising lesson I gleaned from it was that French Socialism is not very popular in France among a large number of its residents. In fact the people sharing the beliefs of the "invisible" authors hate the government system. The book reads like a committee creation. It's an illogical and "pie-in-the-sky" utopian urban myth--ridiculous beyond belief.
The book itself is only136-pages long and most of it is not only boring, boring, boring but also silly. It's a reprint of a French publication and therefore reflects the warped world of absurd, obscure politics. I was surprised to learn that The MIT Press distributes it. It consists of an introduction and twelve chapters each with many sub-sections.
The text is obviously written by intellectual elites who think that they will take over the world and live in small rural communes once they have destroyed the cities. They laugh at the fact that all food production is handled by only 2 per cent of the population while at the same time mentioning several times that the members of their post-revolution communes will have to raise their own food in order to survive. This particular discussion reminded me of Mao's Culture Revolution and Pol Pots driving of all Cambodians out of the cities into the countryside to become serfs while systemically killing anyone who could read, write or had professional skills.
I could visualize the book's authors leading their small band of commune comrades out of the burning cities and suddenly discovering the armed farmers in the countryside weren't interested in surrendering their land to a bunch of lazy city folk. And of course, the radicals also assumed that while their revolutionaries were destroying the internet computer networks and all other modern communications and supply lines, they didn't accidentally cause a few of France's Nuclear Reactors to melt down and irradiate all of France and most of its neighboring nations.
So assuming these new revolutionary communes can take the farmland away from it's owners, then they would get to farm it. So instead of 2% of the population supplying all their food, most of the commune would be needed for basics. That would mean every comrade would have to work and here's some of what the book says about work.
"No question is more confused, in France, than the question of work. No relation is more disfigured than the one between the French and work. Go to Andalusia, to Algeria, to Naples. They despise work, profoundly. Go to Germany, to the United States, to Japan. They revere work."
"We accept the necessity of finding money, by whatever means, because it is currently impossible to do without it, but we reject the necessity of working. Besides we don't work anymore..."
These guys are going to make wonderful members of their Utopian communes after they have destroyed civilization and returned to the Stone Age. They have another subchapter entitled "Get organized in order to no longer have to work." Apparently they don't feel there will be any work involved in organizing an insurrection or revolution and then living in communes out in the countryside.
Mostly this book is like reading warped, misunderstood New Age Gobbly-Gook. The authors are so fascinated in listening to themselves expound their utopian theories that only the French elites would have the patience to wade through the pools of garbage flowing out of the sewers of these visionless amateur revolutionaries. They criticize Al Gore and his global warming theories as promoting only another form of capitalism using a crisis to further tax and control. They are equal opportunity haters. They hate the French government, they hate the educational system, they hate capitalism, they hate the unions and they hate the socialists as well as the rightists. They seem to hate, hate, hate everything and simply want to bring it down without any real vision to replace it with. Even their concepts of Communes are vague and sound like temporary alliances that would be in constant flux. it's not exactly going to appeal to masses of people who would just as soon settle for a job and some respect because they have much too much time on their hands.
Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" frightened me because his plan for destroying American Capitalism seems to have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (please feel free to read my Amazon review of that manual for anarchy). One of Alinsky's biggest disciples is in the White House's Oval Office. This French revolutionary manual doesn't frighten me at all, although I can see why the French Government feels threatened by it. These malcontents are dangerous precisely because they just want to destroy, destroy, destroy. I've just finished reading Mike Dash's "The First Family: The Birth of the American Mafia." After Dash's excellent description of how the Mafia was organized in Sicily and then transported to America, I would predict that if these revolutionaries happened to live through their own violent French Revolution it would only be a matter of time before thugs organized like the Mafia would kill and enslave all of them and then the survivors would have a reason to work, if they wanted have enough to eat to barely subsist that is. These radicals would not even begin to approach the cold-blooded tactics of the Sicilian or Russian Mafia. The disorganized French anarchists would be murdered or enslaved before they knew what had happened. The mafia types aren't interested in destroying everything. They just want to make huge profits by allying themselves with the government, rich land owners and industrialists.
The items that most surprised me about this book were the naivety of the book's utopian authors, the obvious widespread unhappiness with French Socialism, and some of the popular political philosophies passing for logical thinking. One subchapter reminded me of a recent White House Chief of Staff's comment. The book heading was "Make the most of every crisis." That statement scared me a little, but the rest of the book is too boring and confusing to interest, much less inspire, many other revolutionaries.

The Coming Insurrection (Semiotext(e) /Intervention, February 6, 2010
This small book is a freighting and naive portal into the dissatisfaction many of the young diverse population in a socialized Europe, and in particular France, feels about their lives today and the future. The passion and the lack of sophistication are the main reasons for the appeal found in the many diatribes, sermons, pronouncements and hopes the Invisible Committee wanted to be expose by the light of day.

This book is long on emotion and bereft of any real direction. In fact it would appear that the authors are trusting to foster their absolute plan of anarchy from the whole cloth of group consciousness which will bring about the organization of the insurrection. Hmmmm? While you need a flashlight and a GP device to find your way through many of the disconnections, thoughts and aspirations embraced by this work the overall cohesiveness makes it an insightful look at many of today's young communal warriors. A world without money, possessions, status and human organization is not all they want. They want a reality with no work, no debt, no rules and none of the past failings of this species we call man. They are convinced no one is on their side and thus they are on the side of no one and express this isolation by advocating everything in the name of nothing.

Before you reach a decision about my lucidness; read the book and reach your own conclusions............

French foretell US future, October 25, 2010
This should be required reading for all American citizens and certainly all High School and College students. We do not need to repeat the mistakes that the French have made in allowing people from outside their country to migrate to their nation and setup communities that do not recognize local laws. Many "unelected officials" in the Obama Administration in the U.S. have similiar goals.

Worth reading (or listening to) regardless of your politics, August 24, 2010

Editorial Review

"The real cycle you're working on is a cycle called 'yourself.'"

One of the most important and influential books of the past half-century, Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a powerful, moving, and penetrating examination of how we live and a meditation on how to live better. The narrative of a father on a summer motorcycle trip across America's Northwest with his young son, it becomes a profound personal and philosophical odyssey into life's fundamental questions. A true modern classic, it remains at once touching and transcendent, resonant with the myriad confusions of existence and the small, essential triumphs that propel us forward.

Reviews

Why I'm Writing Review Number 473 of a 30 year old book, November 2, 2006
I'm compelled to write this review after browsing the others, because something has to be said about book that isn't being pointed out for someone who is interested in the book for the first time.

At this point, this book can be found on the front table in your local bookstore. Other philosophy books can be found in the philosophy section either collecting dust, or being perused by someone intensely interested in philosophy who is well versed in debates that have gone on for centuries.

I have listened to the author, Robert Pirsig, being interviewed, and it seems that he did, in fact, intend for this book and its premise of "Quality" to be the great, all encompassing philosophy, presented in a straightforward, readable manner. However, despite Pirsig's intention, that is not quite why this book has become so famous.

This book is famous because it fills a perfect niche in that it introduces some very complicated philosophical questions in a form that the common reader will find interesting. Pirsig is attempting to create a practical philosophy and sets the book against the background of actual experience to make the questions he ponders real for the reader.

With that in mind, if you are not clamoring for a debate with someone else who is knowledgable on the ins and outs of Kierkegaard and Spinoza and are simply looking for a readable book that makes a real attempt of answering the big questions in life, this book is for you.

What I find interesting, and somewhat disturbing, is that many choose to deride this book because it doesn't agree with their notions of philosopy, but fail to grasp that the people who are most likely to read this book won't even be at the table to understand their objections to it unless they read it.

Probably no book has ever been more successful in interesting people in philosophy in the first place. So why are people who are interested in the subject eager to send them away because it disagrees with something they read in some banal tome?

Bottom line, if you ran across this book at your local bookshop or had it recommended to you by a friend, you must read it. It is an awesomely thought inspiring book and asks questions you never thought to ask or at least didn't know how to put your finger on. It's both a good novel and a great introduction to philosophy for people who have an interest in greater questions but not all the time to pursue them. I don't think you should worry about the fact that someone with a Masters Degree in Philosophy, or an equivalent knowledge, is bothered by the book. Also, I wouldn't be thrown by the title. The book isn't trying to sell you a newsletter or convert you to any church (despite the use of the phrase "The Church of Reason") and is only using a bit of Zen philosophy as a grounding for its premise.

Pirsig's premise does have a tendency to never be overtly stated, but I believe that he does this because he doesn't want it overly simplified in the way I'm about to do it.

Pirsig's premise is that we live in a world of both the "Classical" and "Romantic" or, as I'll simplify it, "function" and "form", respectively. Pirsig sees the problems in our world as the result of an overemphasis on form, when function is more essential. However, pure "function" has problems of its own. For example, our bodily organs carry out the function of allowing us to live, but one doesn't really desire for our skin to be translucent so we can watch these functions. In fact, we would have a revulsion to such a thing. Therefore, we have a combination of both of "form" and "function"; our organs work very well without our having to see them. This is the desirable state. This desirable state is called "Quality". Good "function" seems to bring about its own desirable "form". May the decorative towel be damned. That's grossly oversimplified, but there it is.

Finally, one shouldn't be thrown off Pirsig's premise by the fact that, quite frankly, he tends to be an impatient father and not very easy to get along with. While reading the book, it becomes apparent that Pirsig is sharing this with us because he is oblivious to it himself. He makes it obvious that he doesn't understand why no one is pondering the philosophical implications of repairing a motorcycle or why his young son isn't arriving at all of the conclusions he is, despite the fact his son is eleven. He seems to be trapped in the context of his own view of the world.

So, if you want to wade your way through all of the pontificating, please take the time to read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". If you really, really like it, you'll have to read Pirsig's other book "Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals". Though "Lila" takes a narrative approach that's a bit less readable than "Zen and...", it gives a more comprehensive view of Pirsig's philosophy. Read both. Then you can debate with the philosophy majors.

Over 2000 Years of Wisdom in 373 Pages, May 2, 2000
In my (1/e)*100 years on this planet, during which I devoured at least ten times as many books, I have read only two more than once - "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is one of them. In this monumental 1974 work, Robert Pirsig has achieved what few others have managed before him and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody else has accomplished since: a perfect unification of philosophy, adventure and mystery. His "Chautauqua," or traveling tale, takes the reader on a profound tour of ancient Greek philosophy, the steppes of Montana, and even a little bit of Zen Buddhism, with endless surprises and much original if not truly inspired thought along the way. Through his self-portrayal by means of the unforgettable and eerily enigmatic character Phaedrus, Mr. Pirsig shares his far-reaching search for the meaning of life, and himself. His fundamental concern is with the following seemingly simple but in effect infinitely complex question: "How can one distinguish "good" from "bad?" The question is posed and addressed in many different forms throughout the book, and in the process the concepts of truth, value and quality are dissected, reassembled, and again dissected and reassembled many times. Mr. Pirsig has an uncanny sense of timing, and he never allows the heavier passages to labor on too long. This is avoided by craftily interspersing his philosophical discourse amongst very down-to-earth and charming observations made during a motorcycle trip that takes the narrator and his seemingly troubled son Chris from the American Prairies to the Pacific, and forms the prevalent background for the entire "Chautauqua." "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is a totally unique creation. Not being one to lend himself easily to corny clich�s, I nevertheless believe that this is one book that definitely could dramatically change your life, whether or not you believe in Zen or have ever sat on a motorcycle. If you love somebody, buy them this book

Well-written, thought-provoking, and courageous., December 18, 2000
Part road novel, part philosophy, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ("ZMM") met with huge critical and commercial success when first published in 1974. Narrator and son ride from Minneapolis to San Francisco; meanwhile, both are haunted by the narrator's past insanity, brought about by his "chasing the ghost of rationality". A series of philosophical monologues addresses questions both mundane - how to fix a motorcycle - and metaphysical.

Today ZMM retains a sizeable following, although criticism of it is very polarised: Pirsig's fervent self-assurance when dealing with philosophical questions converts some readers into "followers" and tends to exasperate everyone else. Mostly structured as a "solution" rather than an "inquiry", as the title claims, ZMM's philosophy is too often accepted without question, and it is frequently and regrettably true that the more positive the review, the more philosophically na�ve the reviewer. Nonetheless, this should not disallow ZMM from being considered on its own merits.

ZMM is not an introductory philosophy text, more a "once-in-a-lifetime" philosophical statement; the comparison has already been made with Hofstadter's "G�del, Escher, Bach", and Hofstadter's description - "a statement of my religion" - could well describe ZMM, too. When one considers the motivation required to sustain Pirsig's long and solitary struggle in writing and publishing ZMM, the rhetorical fervour of his arguments becomes more understandable. Those who attack Pirsig as pompous or narcissistic fail to appreciate the degree of self-belief needed to complete such a highly individualistic work. So, we can certainly admire him for trying - but is ZMM any good?

Some of Pirsig's arguments rest uneasily, such as his blithe acceptance of scientific relativism; and in rejecting subject-object dualism, he paints himself into some peculiar corners, such as his disquiet at the lack of beer cans littering Crater Lake National Park. But there is much in ZMM that is good and thought-provoking, too, especially where education is concerned: all teachers should read this book. And even during his tougher metaphysical monologues, only the driest, most rigid mindset could fail to find Pirsig's rhetoric engaging. Here, his wild claims about the importance of his philosophical arguments are gently counterbalanced by his acknowledged previous insanity: Pirsig takes care to label them the "ramblings of a madman", though not without a certain knowing irony.

ZMM is not just philosophy: it is also a fine piece of travel writing, and a history of Pirsig's teaching career. It remains a novel, however, and not an autobiography: whilst the events described did occur, subtle details have been changed. Most importantly, Robert Pirsig "the author" differs from the narrator, who in turn differs from his former personality ("Phaedrus"). The subtle conflict between the narrator's unifying philosophy, and the barely resolved tensions between narrator/Phaedrus and narrator/son, produces a fully intended irony. Criticism of the narrator is unfair and misguided when it is directed at the author.

Pirsig writes with great clarity. Well-structured sentences and careful use of italics give his writing great explanatory power, reminiscent, for this reviewer, of the biologist Richard Dawkins. We may not agree with Pirsig, but we are rarely in any doubt about what he means to say. Nonetheless, there are inevitable uncertainties at the core of ZMM, concerning reason and its limits. The antipsychiatric "insanity as enlightenment" nettle is never fully grasped, though one senses that this is Pirsig's belief; moreover, the analytic intractability of the Eastern philosophy that he embraces means that ultimately, the "inquiry" never reasons its way to an answer. Those seeking an absolutist metaphysical system will not find it here, and one can imagine Pirsig's sense of unease at becoming a latter-day religious guru.

ZMM is very much unique: four and a half years in the writing, but decades, one senses, in the germination. Fans will enjoy the 25 or so extra pages, cut from the original manuscript, available in DiSanto's "Guidebook to ZMM" - but skip the dreadful philosophy chapters. Pirsig wrote a sequel of sorts, "Lila", in 1991, but its sour atmosphere and slack reasoning make it strictly for the converted. Evidently Pirsig coped badly with his post-ZMM fame: one can imagine the sackloads of witless fan-mail. Unquestionably, for this reviewer, ZMM can stand alone: a model of clarity in written argument, a fine American road novel, and an inspiring demonstration of one man's ability to think for himself.

The Joy of Engagement!, October 24, 2001
Before reviewing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, let me mention that most people will either love or hate the book. Few will be indifferent.

Those who will love the book will include those who enjoy philosophy, especially those who are well read in that subject; people who ride and maintain their own motorcycles; readers who are interested in psychology, particularly in terms of the mass hypnosis of social concepts; individuals who are curious about the line we draw between sanity and insanity; and people who want to think about how to deal with troubling personal situations, especially as a parent. As someone who has all of these interests and perspectives, the book fit my needs very well.

Those who will dislike the book are people who like lots of action in their novels, dislike the subjects described above, and who want easy reading. This book is very thick with concepts, ideas, metaphors, and layering which reward careful reading and thought. Most text books are considerably easier to read and understand. Few modern novels are any more difficult to read from an intellectual and emotional perspective.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has several story lines that intertwine to create a synthesis of thought and experience:

- a father and young son take a motorcycle trip from the Midwest to California
- the father has an internal dialogue with himself about what he observes about the people around him and their engagement with life and technology
- the father attempts to reconstruct the ideas and perspective he had before being treated as a mental patient (which treatment destroyed and distorted his memory and personality)
- the father looks at the great philosophers of western and eastern civilization and attempts to integrate their thoughts into an aesthetic built around our ability to know quality when we see and experience it
- the father deals with the incipient signs of mental instability in his son and himself.

The book is almost impossible to characterize, but let me try anyway. Perhaps the closest book to this one is Hermann Hesse's Siddharta. At the same time, there is also a strong flavor of Zen and the Art of Archery. On the Road by Jack Kerouac covers some of the same intellectual and emotional territory. John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men considers some of the same questions of personal perspective. In terms of challenging the constrictions of society, there is also an element of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit here.

What is most remarkable about the book is the way that it pinpoints the spiritual vacuum in the pursuit of more and shinier personal items. Unlike many books from this time, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance upholds a concept of nobility and worth connected to pursuing material progress in ways that reflect eliminating low quality and replacing it with high quality. Think of this as being like the joy of craftsmanship, compared to the dullness of the assembly line. By setting high standards, expanding those standards, sharing those standards with others, and inspiring people to experience life more fully, we can move forward spiritually as well as intellectually. The motorcycle maintenance details connect these abstractions back to the practical issues of every day, as we roll along across country with the author and his son dealing with the realities of keeping our bike running where the repair and parts options are very limited.

The book's afterward is particularly interesting, in which Mr. Pirsig opines about why this book has had such great and lasting appeal and tells you what happened after the book ends.

Ultimately, I felt uplifted by the high respect that Mr. Pirsig has for his readers. He takes us very seriously, thinks we are intelligent, and pays us the compliment of believing that we can learn to fundamentally change all of our perspectives and experiences.

After you finish this book (if you decide to read it), I suggest that you think about where you disengaged from the challenges, tasks, and people around you. Then, pick out one area and get deeply involved. As you master that one, take on another. And so on. Soon, you will have new and greater respect for yourself . . . and more rewarding relationships.

Get your hands dirty!

Where is the Quality in science and technology?, March 28, 1999
If you are thinking of reading this book there are some things you should know right off. 1. This is not a book about Buddhism, or Zen. It explores the ways in which eastern philosophies can help western thinkers move toward Quality. 2. This book covers a lot of ground, very quickly and is not a philosophical textbook. If you don't know much about philosophy, this book will not change that fact, but it will make you question a lot of the assumptions you have made. 3. This book will change your life! This book is about Quality. If you have read the Tao Te Ching, you have already read a book which attempts to explain Quality. It is the unnamable, the One. Pirsig asks us to question whether science and logic can really bring us closer to the "Truth." Ever since Socrates began using the dialectic to try to discover Truth, humans have been on a quest to find it. The tool we use is known as scientific method. We have been using scientific method for a long time, and it has given us a lot of useful knowledge. It has not, however, brought us any closer to finding an absolute Truth, which is true for everyone everwhere. Quality is undefinable. It comes before thought, and before actions. Any attempt at describing it is useless, because as soon as you attempt to categorize it, you are only talking about one aspect of it. What Pirsig does in this book, is attempt to show us ways that we can use Quality in our lives. He calls his main character Phaedrus. Which comes from Plato's dialogue by the same name. Reading this dialogue will help you immensely in following the arguments he presents. Don't be fooled by this into thinking that Pirsig is a Platonist. Phaedrus was a Sophist, as is the Phaedrus in this book. Neither the historical Sophists, or Pirsig, buy into Plato's concept of absolute "Truth." If you are at all interested in the ideas of subjectivity and the influence of location (in time and space) as it relates to philosophical, religious and scientific claims, this book will greatly interest you. If you're a "post-modernist" you've probably already read this book, and if not, this book will help you to crystallize a lot of your objections to Modernism. If you feel that the world is becoming more and more empty and hollow, and think that part of your basic humanity has been stolen by alarm clocks, concrete, automobiles, and (can I say it?) computers, this book may help you in finding the Quality that resides within technology, yet is so often ignored by those who wield technology like a biological weapon. If you've ever thought that the whole world was crazy, and want to learn more about what really makes a person "insane," you should know that this book is written from the perspective of an insane man. If you are searching for answers, this book will give you a few more questions, and help you realize that life is about the questions, not the answers!

A Narrative and Philosophical Masterpiece, July 11, 2000
I first read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as a college senior twenty-five years ago. I remember then being frightened by how this man's determination to pursue a philosophical idea to its conclusion, even if it were against the grain of established conventions of thinking, drove him insane. I was afraid deeper study and questioning might do the same to me. I know now, however, that I'm not insane. I also know that twenty-five years ago this story of a man and his son travelling by motorcycle from Minnesota to the Pacific Ocean took deep residence in my soul.

I've been a teacher now for twenty-three years, long enough to forget some of my initial influences. But, as I read this book all these years later, I realized that my philosophical view points, examples I use to illustrate ideas with my students, what I believe the purpose of an education is, and several other bits of pedagogy and ideology originated in Pirig's story.

I highly recommend this book, maybe especially if you are unread in philosophy and would like a readable, enjoyable, and provocative entree into the history and vocabulary of philosophy.

It's a deeply moving, intellectually stiumlating story. Its devotion to story-telling and philosophical inpuiry is indeed most rare.

An Exhilarating Ride Well Worth Taking!, January 5, 2001
I first read this book in 1975. I particularly appreciated then the concrete illustrations used in the development of Pirsig's philosophy. However, I was not prepared at that time to follow the details of the logic used to develop his main point, namely, that in ancient Greece rationality had unfairly toppled mysticism as a valid source of knowledge.

I always intended to read the book again and finally last month I found an open week, bought a copy of the new 25th anniversary edition, and went at it. The text is unchanged in content but the print is larger and much easier to read than in my old paperback edition. The margins are wider and allow more annotations. It is well worth getting this Anniversary edition.

This time I got much deeper into Pirsig's main premise--the one noted above. Pirsig believes Quality to be the missing element in today's culture, but he says it must be kept undefined so that rationality will not be able to kill it again as it did thousands of years ago.

My major satisfaction from this novel still comes from the unusually perceptive and cleverly-wrought metaphors that Pirsig presents to advance his philosophical arguments. I have so many favorite ones it is difficult to choose among them. For instance, he labels the University as "Church of Reason," indicating it fanatical devotion to rationality at the expense of other values not approachable through rational means. No wonder professors of philosophy feel threatened. Rationality is their bread and butter!

Other illustrations: He compares the experience of looking out of a framed car window with the frameless view you get riding a motorcycle and uses this as an example of breaking down the subject/object boundary. He indicates that his objective is not to deal with "the 'news,' the silt of tomorrow" which accumulates when the river of culture bends, but to try to deepen the channels of "the best" that lies ahead along the river's future course. He likes to follow "an arrow that enlarges sideways in flight" rather then tracking its forward path in order to find "lateral truths" that point to falseness of axioms which prevent hitting the target. He points out that "institutions such as schools, churches, government, and political organizations of every sort all tend to direct thought for ends other than truth, namely, for the perpetuation of their own functions." I have often pondered this telling truth.

Ultimately, he finds Quality to be the uppermost element of the triad of truth--the creator of both subject and object, residing in the interface between the two. His comparison of Quality with the ancient text of the Tao is exhilarating!

The Quality of this novel is extraordinary for me. It exhibits many of the aspects of Quality in writing such as integrity, imagination, flux, continuity, suspense, insight, pathos, and allegory as it attempts to find the missing element in today's technology-dominated world. It is one of the five formative books in my life, and has a place on my "favorites" bookshelf next to Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" and the poems and essays of D.H. Lawrence.

Resonance Required for Highest-Quality Experience, August 26, 2001
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is an entire experience in philosophy and spirituality condensed into what I found to be a very thought-provoking anti-novel. It has three main "streams" of thought: the story of the motorcycle-riding narrator and his son, the story of Phaedrus, and the Chautauqua that is the narrator's way of explaining Phaedrus' philosophy.

Though the first two chapters of the narrator's musings are slow to bring the reader into the plot, intriguing mystery elements are revealed by the end of Chapter 3. By this time, the reader should know that Phaedrus spent his whole life searching for a ghost, found the ghost, "thrashed it good," and became one himself. However, the nameless narrator cannot tell Phaedrus' story without also giving the reader a crash-course in history, philosophy, and of course, motorcycle maintenance (through the Chautauqua, of course). I now warn those who cannot bear long lectures about dead historical figures, slippery concepts or technical minutiae to leave this book alone.

Part I of the book is set chiefly in the Dakotas. During this part, the Chautauqua mostly discusses the classical-romantic split in people's thinking. What makes Robert M. Pirsig's discussions unique is how he deftly brings Zen concepts into the reader's understanding of the split.

Part II begins with the narrator's arrival in Montana. It is the reader's first real encounter with Phaedrus (an unforgettable, though hardly endearing, character) and the first introduction to the "ghost" that he so passionately pursued. (The ghost's name: REASON. One of its popular haunts: SCIENTIFIC METHOD.)

Part III takes place during and right after the narrator and his son's hike up a mountain. The chapters in this section are almost entirely devoted to the Chautauqua. The discussion of the ghost of Reason is dropped and a full, in-depth explanation of something outside Reason, Quality, is taken up. Pirsig takes great pains to say how Quality determines our values, creates our mythos and touches our hearts. Those who like taking detours when an interesting topic distracts them will love this part. Those who don't care for such detours and want to get on with the story will find this part long-winded and over-written. (This is their second warning!)

Part IV continues and ends Phaedrus' story as the narrator and his son go through Oregon and California. In the Chautauqua, Quality is joined by Reason once more. The reader finds out how Phaedrus travelled to the University of Chicago, took his philosophical inquiry to its logical end, and finally became a "ghost" himself. His conclusions about what is Real, about what is True, about what is Beautiful, and about what is Best, can prove liberating to anyone who has been independently wondering about them. The ending also contains an interesting twist in the story of the narrator and his son.

I can find connections between the ideas in this novel and those in the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the parables of Kahlil Gibran, the poetry of T. S. Eliot, the books of the Bible, and other great spiritual or philosophical literature that generations have read and shared. (Pirsig even explains the why and how of this phenomenon in the Chautauqua.) To best enjoy this story, the reader must relate to it--or resonate to it.

Bridging the gap, October 19, 2003
Pirsig takes us on a literary chautauqua that dives into the split between romanticism and clasicism, and speaks magnitudes about the philosiphies and sciences of Eastern and Western Cultures. The book has seized rave reviews across the globe, and held best-seller status for record amounts of time. One wonders, what could possibly be in this book that has made it so accredited for such a long time? The answer is that the book takes the reader on a journey that was never supposed to happen. Pirsig elucidates, in four hundred pages, about the conflicts with his son, and himself. Phaedrus, Pirsig's former personality, is represented as a ghost from Pirsig's past. Phaedrus takes the reader through Greek logic, Eastern culture, and Buddhist beliefs. The book gives a good explanation of the differences in Eastern and Western cultures, and how the splitting of the two has caused problems throughout the world.
Coming from a background of the dry sciences, my reading of classical literature is hardly amazing. These two topics do not go together and rarely have anything to bridge the gap. This book does that job wonderfully. For the first time, I understood literature of this complexity, because it deals with the sciences and the arts; it kept me interested and also made me relate my life to the characters lives.
So, what do I suggest? If you have the time, the patience, and an open mind, this book will do you wonders and will stick with you for years to come.

Courageous and Unforgettable, July 12, 2001
Many of my thoughts keep returning to ZAMM. It has been a while since I read it last, and I am going to read it again. I have spent the last couple of hours reading reviews here, and it's evident that there is wide disparity in how readers receive this book. One has to wonder what that says. Is Mr. Pirsig onto something or not? Personally, I am confident that he is, and the way that it is done is so masterful as to be almost magical. At times, I can spot something that doesn't ring quite true, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the truth that he is trying to tell is still there.

Multiple themes are woven together: the ride across some of America's best with his only son and the relationship that's theirs alone, a narrative about insanity through the clouded memory of someone that had/has been labeled as such, an examination of western philosophy and its influence on western thought, an alternative eastern perspective, and more.

For many of us that are writing reviews here, Persig begins to unlock a whole realm of possibility. The possibility that awareness of existence (quality, truth, God, whatever you want to call it) may be approachable by non-rational means. Neither logic, anlaysis nor the scientific method may provide the ultimate path. And, without these familar touchstones we are threatened to lose our certainty. Accepting this possibility is both liberating and frightening! It is to stand on the threshold of . . . In a sense, it's a simular place in thought to where the world stood when Columbus discovered the new world.

To be willing to follow Persig with Phaedrus and participate in his Chautauquas is an adventure in courage. One must look into the frailities of our own sanity. It is tempting to deny to oneself this vulnerability, and doing so may render this book meaningless and shallow. However, the participative reader finds the captivation of an "Alice in Wonderland."

Not a text, not a novel, not fiction. It is an autobiography! It's hard to believe that it's true, and the book ends before the story ends -- just like life and the reality that endures. Robert Pirsig is a hero to have gone so far in pondering the "deep channels", and then in sharing his bounty with us.

I'm going to read it again. Thank you Robert. ... Read more