Existentialism Books

An interesting discussion regarding the egocentric modern world. Abram makes reference to a myriad of unconsciously driven facets of human existence, now either ignored or forgotten. Although he limits his argument to the issue of language, his overall thesis is certainly something to consider and apply.

I have been trying to figure out how to write about this book for years; all I can say, really, is that if you lvoe the Earth, and are trying to figure out how we got into this horrible ecological mess AND you want to read some of the finest writing EVER on this, buy this book.

This man writes poetically, lyrically and with profundity. Where is the NEXT BOOK!!!!

I could go on and on about this book. I could quote it for hours. But it seems that people have already done that, which makes me very happy. This book CHANGED MY LIFE. I had to read it when I was about 19 in my philosophy of science, nature, and man class... and I have never been the same. I still meet my 77-year-old philosophy professor for lunch, and there's not a meeting that goes by in which we do not talk about this book. Fantastic. Soulful. Incredible.

This is one of the rarest, most utterly original books there is, and indeed could ever be. It is written by someone whose soul is that of a magician and poet and whose art is so triumphant with sheer spirit that every sentence is radical and radicalizing. It is a book whose comprehension of the human condition is generous, natural and enormous. It describes the necessity of nature not just for human being but for human thinking; this is a cry for the protection of the human mind.

It has deeply influenced my own thinking, from the moment I read it, and has remained one of the best books I've ever read.

"A butterfly glides by, golden wings navigating delicate air currents with a few momentary flutters before they settle on a white flower...Fragrant whiffs from the new blossoms in the overgrown orchard by the creek stir...My sensing body now vividly awake to the world." ~ pg. 223

"The Spell of the Sensuous" is a fairly complex read that takes you on a journey through a myriad of experiences as related to the natural world. Through this journey we gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be human in a sensuous world. Language, lore and cultural heritage is also a focus.

David Abram subtly draws a stark contrast between how tribal cultures have viewed the earth and how modern man seems far removed from nature's protective beauty. Whether he is speaking about Native Americans or the Ancient Greeks he explores their culture from the viewpoint of how they relate to the land and air.

"The emergence or adoption of a formal writing system significantly solidifies the ephemeral perceptual boundary already established by a common tongue; now the spoken language has a visible counterpart that floats, fixed and immobile, between the human body and the sensuous world." ~ pg. 256

While at first this may seem like a casual discussion of how cultures pass along their traditions, you may soon realize that this is much more a serious investigation into how people either preserve or destroy the living breathing environment. A discussion of how cultures moved from oral traditions to the written word is fascinating. You can see how even today some cultures show a remarkable respect for their environments while others seem to have lost their connection to the earth.

At times highly intellectual and at other times pure, spiritual and poetic, David Abram's writing weaves through your soul to bring you to a higher awareness of the land in which you live and the importance of preserving your natural heritage.

~The Rebecca Review

it is well written but the whole story made me increasingly tense and anxious, as well it should. this was not a book that was fun or pleasurable to read. but it was extremely interesting.

One morning Joseph K. is arrested. It is never made clear what the charges are, but K. always maintains his innocence, as he grapples with a bureaucracy that slowly strangles his career and consumes his life.
Franz Kafka's 'The Trial' was published posthumously shortly after his death. It was never completely finished and it was unclear how the chapters were to be ordered. It is no surprise then that the plot is somewhat episodic. I had expected the story to be a dystopian nightmare, instead it was blackly humourous as K. deals with the judicial bureaucracy and various absurd situations.
There are many themes and interpretations, but the most obvious (and to me the most relevant) is the power of government and bureaucracy to destroy lives, not through active malice but as an impersonal force like a car driving over a squirrel . Once K. has been arrested he can never be acquitted, he can only hope to delay the final guilty verdict.
'The Trial' is a monumentally important work, that is more relevant than ever as government and its attendant bureaucracies have more impact on our lives with every passing year.

The Trial is like falling asleep into a splendid deleterious nightmare, with all of the dread and Angst, and never being quite able to find the code to lead oneself out of the intricately spun labyrinth. It surely will be a joy for those capable of opening up to Kafka's complex existential world. It is said that Kafka laughed obstreperously while reading this book. I tried to laugh along with him, but I believe there are a myriad of other approaches to this novella that are just as appropriate. I recommend to all.

The metaphors and symbolism in this book are so liberating, ironically however, to speak about the oppression of totalitarianism in his time.

Block, the painter, and Leni among others, are strangers who understand the complications of Joseph K's case as well as the details of court operations. The story exist in a state of total chaos, characters come and go for no clear reason, out of the blue, women go crazy over Joseph and then changing on him for no reason, People show concern for him and then become completely indifferent to his plight and an accusation , that he doesn't understand, is made. Joseph doesn't know if it's a crazy nightmare or reality.

The court that has access to any information or place at any time and holds the divine authority to decide everybody's destiny, still conducts its business in weird, dark and suspicious places. Is the court a symbol of the unaccountable bureaucracy that Kafka witnessed or was it the inner world of alienation that Kafka experienced all of his life? Was the first building that Joseph went to for the first court meeting merely a strange, empty, dark place or was it a maze that symbolizes a corrupt society?

When the prison chaplain comments: "...it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary", did he refer to the corrupted legal system or to the crazy world as Kafka saw it?

What does Fraulein Burstner symbolize in Joseph's life? What is the significance of her sudden vague appearance at the end? was she the last connection to life in Joseph's eyes?

Why didn't Joseph fight the two men at the end? Had he given up and wanted to end his emotional torment or was it his longing to discover the ultimate truth?

As is typical of Kafka's works, there are many unanswered questions, but the journey through his works is outstanding and complex. It isn't called Kafkaesque for nothing.

unlike critics who would say that this novel was never finished, I believe that Kafka finished this novel and made the characters and events as random and confusing as possible. Reading the Trial, another Kafka masterpiece, is certainly time well spent.

Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard's labyrinth, even though it is liberally sprinkled with a plethora of sometimes agonizing and complex detail, you should not shy away from reading it, for one simple reason: reading Kierkegaard's words is a pleasure in itself even if the topic is already revealed.

Kierkegaard is discussing the biblical story of Abraham; the story of an 80 year old man, who prays for a son, and finally has his wish granted by god, assuming it is a true story. Abraham's son Isaac is thirty years old, when God commands Abraham to kill his son; I assume readers know the rest of the story. Kierkegaard is concerned about the feelings and emotions that Abraham as a human had at this point. Kierkegaard suggests 4 different scenarios and discusses Abraham's feelings, thoughts and faith accordingly.

The act of killing alone is unethical, but given that God ordered it, a person with extraordinary faith should do it regardless of the immorality of the act. Abraham's faith forced him to make a decision to commit an unethical act, but Kierkegaard's discussion of the story assumes a paradox between what Abraham believed and what he had faith in. Abraham believed that he must kill his son, but he had to have faith that his son would not die; a paradox that only faith will resolve because of the limitations of the human mind. Perhaps the real message in the story of Abraham and Isaac is that having absolute faith in anything is a bad idea. Was Abraham's faith stronger after the incident or did we enter a phase, which continues to this day, where we have faith, but we also question, some more than others?

This is a very important point, necessary to understand why Kierkegaard is one of the few thinkers who didn't choose atheism or a simple leap of faith; he chose to oppose religion on a society level and accept faith on a private level between each person and God.
Ethical systems are created to protect society in general, Faith necessitates understanding the uncertainties that humans experience when facing a situation of conflict between ethics and religions/beliefs.

The way Kierkegaard takes us wandering through his romantic intellectual maze is enchanting and exhausting at the same time, but don't take my word for it, read and explore for your self.

Not to be seen as making an Ad Hominem attack (a judgment based on the writer, or, in this case, the reviewer, as opposed to his or her argument), it should be quite obvious that at least one critic of this book does so on the basis of his own, personal "faith" in the Christian concept of God and all the rest of the residue that this belief provides. Now, I realize that I, being a confirmed atheist, bring my own intellectual baggage to this review. For that reason alone, some will dismiss my critique as one of a heathen, a pagan, an infidel, or something even worse (like, perhaps, a Jew). Well, my critique has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief in any god. I approach this from the standpoint of memetics, a fledgling science first introduced by Richard Dawkins in his tour-de-force of a book, The Selfish Gene. A "meme", basically, shares some, though certainly not all, of the characteristics of a gene, except for one important difference. A meme is the smallest unit of CULTURAL transmission, as opposed to a gene, which is a unit of biological transmission. A meme could be, say, the song "Happy Birthday to You", or rap music, or the obsession with anything made by Marc Jacobs. One obvious consequence of cultural verses biological transmission is that genes are transmitted vertically - from parents to offspring - while memes are transmitted horizontally, like viruses. In fact, the epidemiological model frequently invokes memes as being "viruses of the mind". Now, what does any of this have to do with Kierkegaard? So, it has to do with his concept of faith. Groups of memes, called memeplexes by some, tend to employ whatever strategies are most likely to spread themselves. Well, Christianity, like most religions, has some serious flaws in its logic, ranging from the transubstantiation of Christ, to the bodily resurrection of the faithful (there's that word again), to the existence of more than a single god. Basically, the religion is absurd, and anyone who questions it will see that in a second. But there's a catch, and that's the addition of the "faith meme". It could be said that the more outrageously absurd the religion, the more necessary the faith meme, and the stronger the faith meme needs to be in order to insure continued belief in the religion. For most, or many, of the faithful, faith is indeed the component that allows them to accept everything, such as Jesus' resurrection from the dead, or belief in a five-thousand-year old earth. So, what does all this have to do with Kierkegaard? Could it be that he wanted desperately to believe, to have faith, in his religion, but he was too smart to buy it? The faith meme wasn't working on him as it did/does on so many others of lower intellect, just plain gullibility, or such fear of death in this world that they create another. Perhaps this is a simplistic way of interpreting Kierkegaard, but I have faith that it's at least accurate. For all those who are intrigued, or, better yet, offended, by this review, I would recommend picking up (investing in) a copy of Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine", as well as Richard Dawkins's recent best-seller, "The God Delusion". I, by the way, am no philosopher or philosophy student, so you can dismiss this easily with the old Ad Hominem attack - he has no credentials so why should we listen to him; better to listen to Jesus, at least he could walk on water. Well, if you want to believe that, then God bless you, you have more faith than I do. - dsb

This is an amazing book that deals with Abraham and his order from God to kill, then desist from killing Isacc. This book has the ring of Gods image, or inner truth distilled in us all. Abraham was indeed no genius but with the combination of realizing his inner image of God (truth) and his faith he took a huge step for Gods Children. With that combination abraham possed true faith. It was God himself who told Abraham to sacrifice Isacc, yet a mere angel whom told him not to. A person of modern faith would have, without much doubt went ahead and killed Isacc as a person of modern faith would think that the angel was the devil simply tempting he/she-after all it was god who gave the order to kill and only an angel who said not to.

Find out if you have been blinded by modern faiths lack of truth and seeking, and see if you would do as abraham did. Read this and it will help you tear away modernities fairy tale faith from the inside out and leave you seeking true faith, a faith that does not come cheap and is not shear leniency like most modern versions of faith.

Faith, it goes without saying, is a personal thing. It is a private aspect of a person's life that may, if they wish, become public, though there is no real need for this to occur. Faith is something that cannot be explained - certainly not to the satisfaction of an atheist - rather, it is something that is believed. Faith, in short, is faith. The particularities of faith are among the causes of many great schisms of the last thousand or so years of European history. Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard's small, dense work on faith, tackles the problem of what is means to believe.

In the 19th century, secular philosophy believed that religion was explicable, whereas the difficulties of Hegel were exceedingly great. 'I for my part have devoted a good deal of time to the understanding of the Hegelian philosophy, I believe also that I understand it tolerably well, but when in spite of the trouble I have taken there are certain passages I cannot understand, I am foolhardy enough to think that he himself has not been quite clear. All this I do easily and naturally, my head does not suffer from it. But on the other hand when I have to think of Abraham, I am as though annihilated.'

Annihilated. Kierkegaard explores the biblical story of Abraham, who was commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Abraham sets out with the full intention of doing so, but is prevented at the last moment. A ram is provided as a sacrifice instead. Kierkegaard saw this as the supreme example of what it means to have faith, and how faith could never be properly understood through the lens of faith. He puts forth, at the start, alternate versions of internal thoughts for Sarah (Abraham's wife), Abraham and Isaac, and then explores what it means that Abraham was willing to go to such lengths for God.

The concepts Kierkegaard is dealing with are obviously very heavy, but there is a lightness of touch to his philosophy that makes reading Fear and Trembling a pleasure rather than a chore. Kierkegaard's language is conversational, almost casual, but it is also elegant and quite powerful. He wrote the novella through the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, the text is heavily personalised throughout, with much of the opinion coming directly from the author. Kierkegaard suggests that 'the ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac', he goes on to say that it is this very contradiction that shows the chasm between reason and faith. For any reason, and in almost any context, the story of Abraham is the story of a man willing to murder his own son. But only when the story is read from the viewpoint of faith does it become something more, indeed it becomes something so far above our experience that Abraham will forever remain impossible to understand. He asks whether the duty to obey God supersedes the ethically negative choice to murder. To say that Abraham acted admirably or ethically is to miss the point, Kierkegaard answers. Abraham acted with faith. He was not, at any time, aware of the outcome of his actions, other than the outcome which had been directly demanded by God. He was going to sacrifice his son with the full understanding that what he was doing was committing murder in the name of God, that he was spared at the final instant reflects nothing on Abraham, because he passed every challenge perfectly. If Abraham had known Isaac would be spared, the whole story would remain at a level which we, as humans using our reason, could understand. But that he did not know, that he was willing to sacrifice his son, shows a level of faith that can only be understood by faith.

Kierkegaard asks difficult questions with Fear and Trembling. Faith, whether one possesses it or not, is a fascinating topic for discussion and contemplation. Kierkegaard was writing at a time when faith was on the wane - and this time has arguably continued until the present - indeed, when philosophical energy was devoted to purely secular problems. He argues, emphatically and convincingly, that a true understanding of God can only come about after a supreme test of faith akin to that of Abraham's. Abraham proved that he had faith by being faithful in the absolute sense of the word - Kierkegaard dubs him a Knight of Faith. He also introduces the concept of a Knight of infinite resignation who, though they may live a similarly heroic, majestic, important, influential life, know that at some stage they will get it all back - be it historical justification, or wealth and power while they are alive. Abraham only knew that he would end his day having killed his only son, and yet he still climbed the mountain and raised his knife high. That is faith.

Essential reading for anyone with the slightest interest in religion or philosophy. He makes an important point: faith cannot be collapsed into the ethical, taking the Old Testament story of Abraham's aborted sacrifice of Isaac as his proof text. If faith was simply a matter of acting ethically, then we wouldn't need religion, only ethics. That said, I don't like how he makes faith into something so superhuman and difficult that only a few spiritual athletes are capable of it. Which is wrong. Christian faith is available to anyone. Christ said, "come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." And I don't believe that faith contradicts ethics either, as Kierkegaard suggests. Kierkegaard's message was to a largely Christian society that took faith for granted. He wanted to bring out the radicality of faith, which is a valuable message. But today, when Christian Churches are losing members, we need the evangelical message, to bring people in. Faith is first of all an expression of love for God and our fellow humans, not a leap into the absurd. Kierkegaard used to appeal to me more when I was younger, and I liked the idea of viewing my faith as something radical and even scandalous. Now that I'm more mature, I realize that faith is really about loving and trusting God and loving my neighbor as myself. Yes, there's a sacrifice involved; Kierkegaard is right about that, but trusting God means trusting his goodness and love.

The book is a great value for the price, but there isn't much in the way of extras. I just wanted the text, though, and this is great.

Just so you know, THIS particular copy of The Birth of Tragedy is NOT split up into the chapters. It's just continuous text all the way through. This is not much of a problem for the recreational reader, but as I am a student, I had to know exactly which portions to focus on. I had to find a text copy online so I knew where to write the numbers. The cover looks like it was made MS Paint too...

This is a slendor volume, yet it is my favorite of all of Nietzsche's works. So far as I can tell it is a fairly good translation, but obviously this book has not gotten the amount of attention that his other works have, so perhaps the definitive translation has not yet arrived.

In my opinion, this book offers original and excellent insights in the area of classical scholarship. It also provides a good introduction for Nietzsche's later philosophy. I also feel that it is a must read for creative people.

This is one of maybe five reviews I've ever written online. I only do so if I absolutely love a product or am absolutely appalled by something I wish a fellow amazon addict had included in an online review. This will be the latter. This book is rife with translation errors. Not even so much translation errors because I don't speak German but basic grammatical mistakes; "From another perspective we see the force of this un-Dionysian spirit in action directing its effects against myth, when we turn our gaze toward the way in which the way in which the presentation..." -page 56 (this is just one in a long list of examples). Another weird fact about this book is that it is the size of a magazine? I have no fundamental problem with that, I loved JG Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition which had the same dimensions; however because this book is a mere 80 pages it's just awkward to read. Do yourself a favor and buy another version of this book that doesn't have an abundance of errors. The only saving grace for this POS are the ideas contained therein.

The first essay of this giant philosopher is deeply influenced for the echoes of Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner and pretends expose a new conception of the world : the tragic thought, , the intuition of the unity of the things , the converse affirmation of the life and death , the timeless return , the innocence of becoming .
Fundamental text if you want to get ready for the Apollonian and Dionisus duel!

What a great book to bring someone into exelstentialism. While Barrett has a slight bias towards Kierkegard and Nietzsche he makes great connections between romanticism and the precursors to modernity. Great quick read that has some great insights.

Nothing is more exhausting than the search for meaning. Every question has a thousand answers, each claiming to be correct. And each can be challenged by a thousand objections. Evermore we come out the same door as in we went, and return to -- ourselves. We alone are unavoidably the final arbiters of our personal beliefs and values. Occasionally we have the good fortune to find a guide through the jungle of perplexing philosophical questions who can explain issues clearly, distinctly, and quietly, without forcing his personal conclusions on us. But how do we know the guide is reliable? Before we have heard what he has to say, we don't. And if we chose to believe that he is reliable, that is our choice.

I agree with the many readers of _Irrational Man_ that Barrett is a remarkably persuasive guide. Not that I agree with him completely -- nobody's beliefs can totally correspond with those of another. No matter. Barrett has his feet on the ground, and one gets the feeling when reading him that however convoluted the explanation -- and some (but not all) explanations are necessarily convoluted -- Barrett is not playing with smoke and mirrors. My recommendation is to read a few pages of what he has to say as critically as you please, and then decide for yourself.

William Barrett (1913-1992) grew up in the generation just before and after WWII. His memoir _The Truants: Adventures among the Intellectuals_ (1982), recounts his early days at _Partisan Review_ and his associations with such figures as Delmore Schwartz, Mary McCarthy, Edmund Wilson, and Philip Rahv. Very interesting as biography; no philosophy. The book is out of print but can be found for a ridiculously low price. [This author's middle name was Christopher, I think, although he uses neither the name nor initial to identify his writings. He is not to be confused with William E. (Edmund) Barrett (1900-1986), the novelist, and at least one other William Barrett, who appears to be a psychoanalyst.]

_Irrational Man: A study in Existential Philosophy_ (1958) is credited with being largely responsible for introducing existentialism to America. Two years earlier Barrett edited and published a work that might be described as the first attempt to provide a serious philosophical rationale for the post-war "Zen Boom": _Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T. Suzuki_(Doubleday Anchor, 1956). Both books are still selling well, a half century later. But Barrett, like many others, was put off by the pretentious antics of the Beat Generation:

`Twenty years ago, . . . I played a small part in introducing Zen to this country, and I have not always been happy with the results. American youth acquired another vocabulary to throw around. The "mindlessness" that Zen recommended was pursued by the young in the haze of marijuana and drugs. They forgot, if they had ever learned, the prosaic and magnificent saying of the sage Hui-Neng: "The Tao [the truth] is your ordinary mind." In recent years I have let myself forget all about Zen, and probably have been nearer to its spirit. Stick to your ordinary mind, reader, and forget the tabs. Find your own rocks and trees.' (_The Illusion of Technique: A Search for Meaning in a Technological Civilization_ , 1978, , p. 371)

Judging from Amazon's book listings, Barrett's later works do not sell as well as his early ones -- which is not to say that they are not worth our attention. Philosophical popularity is rarely a measure of worth. The rather substantial (392 pp.) _Illusion of Technique_ was followed by _Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer_ (1986), a rather slight volume summing up his conclusions.

Barrett taught philosophy at New York University, 1950-1979, but was no "ivory tower" intellectual. He was well aware of what may be called the gap between phenomenalism and scientific materialism. He lucidly explores the issues, but offers no easy answers. If you are interested in ideas, see what an involved thinker has to say.

Readers may be interested to know that in 1962, four years after _Irrational Man_, Barrett teamed up with Henry D. Aiken to produce a 4-volume set called _Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: An Anthology_. (Random House) -- an anthology of extracts with extensive introductions. Vol. Three, Part Four (Phenomenology and Existentialism), pp. 123-450 !!, returns to the topic, this time with the inclusion of Camus and Bergson. As of this writing, Amazon lists the set under two numbers, but ASIN: B000AQLUMQ (which can be typed in as a title) has an extensive list of dealers with sets and individual copies at good prices. I highly recommend checking them out.

A great introduction to existentialism. Easy to read. I read and re-read various sections for pleasure.

"Irrational Man" is a classic work that is as important now as it was 40 years ago. I first read this in high school in the 60s and found it captivating. The experience must have fermented because about ten years later I went back to school to study philosophy through grad school. A second reading was even better than the first. Barrett does an outstanding job of putting the whole project of Western philosophy in perspective. This book is entirely accessible to someone without formal training in philosophy, and the experience of reading it will be richly rewarded.

A wonderful introduction to the major tenets and founders of existentialism. Concise, easy to read, easy to understand. Barrett's book allows the reader to build a formidable groundwork of existential understanding -- an understanding just as necessary to humanity today as it was 40+ years ago when Barrett wrote it.

A good introduction to the history and basic concepts of Wabi-Sabi. It has good examples that are relevant to our culture and lifestyle. I wish it had better photos. But overall I recommend it.

This was a great intro to the ideas of wabi sabi. the use of modern art as a reference point is a very constructive way to describe "what is" and "what is not" wabi sabi. I definitely recommend this book for any artist or creative mind.

It was not as good as I expected. I would not pay full price for it again, in fact, it did not stay in my collection but was bought by a used bookstore. If you are interested in a philosophical or spiritual aspect of art or writing, look elsewhere. While it is a lovely looking book, the information could have been found online for free. I would have been happier with a small book of Haiku.

This book has been very important for me in its ability to explain something that is hardly explainable - more to suggest the essence of Wabi Sabi and let the reader take it the rest of the way. Particularly in the second half of this slender book does the nature of Wabi Sabi come to life. It is a book I will continue to read on occasion, and it sits next to my Tao te Ching ready to be accessed at any time.

a close friend of mine loaned me the book on saturday - i read it once on sunday, and again yesterday (monday)

the book is more powerful than i can describe in a review. 5-stars, no-brainer.. read this book!

the orientation is more ideological than demonstrative or critical.. the relative shortage of (delightful!) examples leaves me wanting more. and as much as like loved this book, i would like to read the large glossy version titled "wabi-sabi: for people with ipods, large televisions, and who generally disdain reading" :)

in its existing form, the book is an easy and inspiring read. if you're intrigued by the beauty of a pair of worn-out shoes, the grime of a subway station, the cracks in a crumbling rock, a decaying leaf, etc.. this book may give words, insight and extension to your aesthetic perception. given the relative lack of high-fidelity examples, it may be hard for others to gain an appreciation of wabi-sabi through this book

wabi-sabi is primarily contrasted with modernism, providing a much more useful and forward-focused comparison than against its more classical/baroque aesthetic ancestors - however the comparison does imply an inappropriate (imo) us-vs-them context with modernism. modernism is concerned with the clean, permanent, undistracting, impersonal, etc.. wabi-sabi is about the dirty, organic, distracting and personal. the author positions wabi-sabi as occupying a subset of aesthetics that is *not* modern.. i don't know if this "anti" element is a crucial part of wabi-sabi (?). wabi-sabi would be more powerful to me if it were described only in terms of its own fundamental traits, without counter-reference to other aesthetic ideologies. i find my ipod attractive *and* i find decaying leaves attractive - is it possible there could be more one "good" aesthetic?! the author generally defines wabi-sabi as fundamentally antithetical to modern design aesthetics. for example, on page 9 he writes:

"wabi-sabi - deep, multi-dimensional, elusive - appeared the perfect antidote to the pervasively slick, saccharine, corporate style of beauty that i felt was desensitizing american society. i have since come to believe that wabi-sabi is related to many of the more emphatic anti-aesthetics that invariably spring from the young, modern, creative soul: beat, punk, grunge, or whatever it's called next"

otherwise, i don't know anything about zen buddhism - and the book left me wanting to know more

I enjoyed the sarcasm and dark humor in this book. However, it isn't the greatest book I've ever read. It felt like a strange dream of someone under the influence of some kind of substance. Fun read, but not very meaningful. I guess that is the point of existentialism. I did appreciate it though. Good book for when you are in-between intellectual works; you can read it, take the words at face-value, and still be impacted.

I bought this book because of the title. Little did I know that it would turn out to be the best book I've read in a very long time. I have a hard time considering it a piece of prose. It is pure poetry. Tao Lin is my new favorite writer.

tao lin's eeeee eee eeee makes me want to exist and write novels. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee can cure insomnia, depression, and heartache. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee will make you want to exist and write novels. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee will cure your insomnia. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee will improve the quality of your life. tao lin's eeeee eee eeee will maybe save your life.

I like this book. It made me laugh. Tao is nice to me. If you buy this book, he'll feel happy.

Few writers paint with a brushstroke that is as thoughtful and hilarious as Tao Lin.

Tillich believes that modern man's predominant anxiety is a sense of meaninglessness leading to despair. This is the Existentialist's plight. Tillich states that meaninglessness has not always been the predominant concern. In prior ages it had been death and later guilt.

In order to resolve the angst of modern man, Tillich imposes upon himself that "The answer must accept, as its precondition, the state of meaninglessness." This precondition creates the cul-de-sac for his rational argument.

Tillich himself, offers the naïve solution of "The faith which creates the courage to take [meaninglessness/anxiety] into itself has no special content. It is simply faith, undirected, absolute. It is undefinable, since everything defined is dissolved by doubt and meaninglessness."

In other words, Tillich suggests that to resolve meaninglessness and despair one should resort to having faith without subject matter.

Tillich further explains himself by stating the requisite courage/faith is not without subject matter but rather is in "pure being" or "the God above God". This is nonsense. The God of the Bible is the great "I AM", pure being. There is no God above God.

By giving the proposition "God above God" Tillich is either:

a) making a substitution identical to that which is being substituted, making the proposition gibberish

b) removing God from the equation, replacing Him with the power of being within ourselves as the basis for our courage (what an ersatz this exchange would be, a finite force within ourselves, leading to certain death, rather than a personal God who could be implored that held the power to gift eternity).

or

c) replacing the definition of God handed down through the ages and substituting it for one, more amenable to his existentialist philosophy. In so doing he is falling into the trap of creating god in his own image. One also would have to ask the question why he feels he should be trusted with elucidating to mankind who God is, using his reason alone? The credentials of Jesus and Moses are likely more qualified for this which is likely why their assertions are believed more than those of Tillich.

If you were not certain before reading this book that Existentialist philosophy has no real legitimate answers for meaning in life this book should provide another nail in the coffin towards that conclusion.

TILLICH'S BASIC IDEAS OF GOD AND THE GOD-ABOVE-GOD ARE NOT CLEAR IN THE COURAGE TO BE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE STATES AS THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF CHRISTIAN CLERGY KEEPING PEOPLE FROM REALIZING THE NATURE OF "GOD" FOR WHICH PURPOSE HE IDENTIFIES THE "GOD-ABOVE-GOD" THE NATURE OF "GOD" IS
THE GREAT MACHINE WHICH IN ALBERT EINSTEIN'S VIEW FOR EXAMPLE OBVIATES HUMAN FREEDOM. THAT IS: THE UNIVERSE IS MACHINE GOVERNED BY FIXED LAW; WE ARE ALL PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE, NO MORE FREE THAN A ROCK TO HAVE FREEDOM FROM, SAY, GRAVITY. TILLICH SAYS THAT TO REALLY GRASP THIS IS
BEYOND HUMAN ENDURANCE. IF ONE IS A SERIOUS STUDENT OF THE BIBLE, ONE CAN SEE THAT THE "GOD" OF TILLICH IS PRESENTED TO THE JEWS, BUT WITH A SET OF ILLUSIONS, AS CHOSEN, THE NEED FOR AN ENEMY TO DEFINE AS OTHER THAN AS THE "GOD" OF TILLICH THE NATURE OF THE JEWISH INDIVIDUAL, THE LONG-TERM ETHIC OF GHE GOOD DEFINED AS WHAT IS BEST FOR JEWS THROUGH CENTURIES. EINSTEIN CALLED THE JEWISH GOD (THE "GOD" OF TILLICH) AS THE
NEGATION OF SUPERSTITION AND WITH IMAGINARY CHARACTERISTICS ADDED.
THE "GOD-ABOVE-GOD" IS AN INTELLECTIZED JUSTIFICATION FOR IGNORING OR NOT PERMITTING OTHERS TO COMPREHEND THE MECHANICAL NATURE OF REALITY. TO IGNORE INVOLVES RISK. A MAN WHO IGNORES THE MECHANISTIC NATURE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN FAVOR OF COURAGE, HOPE, ROMANTICISM OR WHATEVER EXERCISES EITHER HIS IGNORANCE OR HIS COURAGE.

I purchased two books written by Paul Tillich for one dollar a piece at Half-Price books. One is this book particular title. I have heard of the author because RC Sproul has often argued his thoughts as a mischaracterization of Christianity and the relationship possible between God and man. Paul Tillich's philosophy is clearly contradictory to Christianity. The author clearly states his thoughts are not biblical; he plainly does not believe in a greater being nor does he like the Being described in the Bible. This book is about man's relationship to the universe absent God. It is an argument that one needs to have courage absent the security of traditional religion; there is no God in his philosophy describing right and wrong; there is no higher Being protecting you. His perspective is part pantheism. Man does not die to be part of a conscience state, but pure dust and part of the whole of creation. One may have a social conscience but there are no arbiters to determine what one think is correct. This book is about the implications of this Worldview and the implications of grasping this `truth".

I believe the author could have made a more organized and clearer argument. The language is clear and easy to understand, but the thoughts could have been more organized.

It seemed at the beginning that it would be too abstract. Too involved in a history of philosophy in its discussion of the Stoics. That Tillich was asserting too much, as if "ex cathedra". But even in the early chapters, I sensed something special and by the time I reached Chapter 4 ("Courage and Participation: The Courage to Be as a Part"), I began to feel the my current situation was being directly and wisely addressed. That feeling only grew stronger from that point on.

There's so much value in this book that I feel somehow unworthy of reviewing it. It doesn't seem that any amount of time I spent preparing a review could do justice to "The Courage to Be". I had heard so much of Tillich but this is the first time I have read him. I have missed a lot and I am grateful I finally turned to him. I had been concerned about religious myths and whether Christianity retained any value for me. Gnostic Christian myths seems fascinating and they made me wonder if Christianity might offer more to me than I had suspected. That concern with myths and Christianity led me to read several books by the progressive Christian Bishop John Shelby Spong (e.g. Jesus for the Non-Religious)). Spong mentioned in at least one of his books that he had been a student of Tillich's. Tillich had challenged Spong with the concept of nontheism, a position that Spong has moved to. That has been my own understanding since my teens but I had turned to nontheistic Eastern religions and to unorthodox, nondogmatic Western religions. Only recently had I been open to reconsidering liberal Christianity. To some extent I had already done that with such postmodern thinkers as Thomas Altizer (The Gospel of Christian Atheism and Living the Death of God: A Theological Memoir) and recently Spong. Following up with Tillich and this book has been literally a godsend.

In much of "The Courage to Be", Tillich applies his knowledge of Western Existentialism. This meant all the more to me as in my teens I had devoured such existentialists as Sartre, Camus and to a lesser extent even Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. But it was difficult to apply it to my situation. Altizer had helped by tracing developments from Christianity into postmodern movements including atheism but he was difficult to follow.

Here now is Tillich who ties together Western Existentialist topics such as anxiety and meaninglessness and a postmodern concern to rediscover the relevance of the Christian tradition. Is one's self in danger today of being a thing, or as he writes "a matter of calculation and management"? As Tillich points out, the Existentialist Revolt strongly opposed such objectification. But by transcending the theistic way of understanding the sacred ,by turning to "the God above God", Tillich shares a hope ( at least in finding courage) that speak to those Existentialism addressed but recovers something from Christian roots. It is a project that seems to take better advantage of Western history and Christianity's role in it as it was than Spong's dependence on speculations to salvage an acceptable image of Jesus.

This is not a book for a single reading. I've started already on my second reading and I am also reading more of Tillich, already The socialist decision and am planning to read soon A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Edited By Carl E. Braaten. I somehow overlooked Tillich all these years and I am eager to make up for lost time. The timing is good because, as Spong has described, I seem to be "a believer in exile", raised a Christian and, although having questioned much about it, still influenced by my Protestant upbringing and by the many writings such as those of the Existentialists, that proceeded directly from or in reaction to Christianity.

Finding "A Courage to Be" and Tillich may be a way for me to accept my background without rejecting what I have learned and felt since.

Tillich gathers strands from stoicism, theistic existentialism, dialectical thought and fideism in an attempt to weave a unifying belief-system. I don't think he completely succeeds in doing that. However, he does manage to express some spiritual insights. And it is in the mining these spiritual gems that makes the book a worthwhile read.

Many reviewers have voiced the opinion that Tillich's writing style is very difficult to read. I do not necessarily agree with this assessment. Tillich employs paradoxical language in an attempt to explain that which is beyond all words. At times, his writing is dry. But it is not terribly difficult to follow.

Here are some of the insights that I have gathered from the reading of this book:

- The human predicament is the estrangement of one's existence from one's essential being. This estrangement is sin.

- God is understood as "being" itself. And "being" is a "creative process."

- There's a dialectical tension between being and nonbeing. And "the courage to be" is the power of being to will itself, to overcome the threat of nonbeing.

- "Courage needs the power of being, a power transcending the nonbeing" pg. 155

- Existential angst takes on three distinct forms: 1) the anxiety of fate and death, 2) the anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness and 3) the anxiety of guilt and condemnation.

Tillich discusses at length the sociological implications of these three forms of "anxieties" as they played out in history.

At the heart of Tillich's discussion is the dialectical tension that exists between the individual and the group of which the individual is a part. Both the individual and the group are affirmed and denied. By affirming the self, the individual denies the group; by affirming the group, the individual denies himself. How does one overcome this conflict? By "the courage to be," and the "courage to be" is none other than faith itself.

"The 'courage to be' is the courage to accept oneself as accepted in spite of being unacceptable." pg. 164 This is Tillich's interpretation of the doctrine of "justification by faith."

I found Tillich's discussion of death to be very interesting:

"The courage to die is also the test of the courage to be. A self-affirmation which omits taking the affirmation of one's death into itself tries to escape the test of courage, the facing of nonbeing in the most radical way." pg. 169

We must learn to embrace death by taking death into ourselves. And it is with this acceptance that we affirm the "courage to be." It is only by dying, by dying to the self, that we are reborn to eternal life. Faith defined as the "courage to be" is where we derive the power of God, who is being itself.

Here are some examples of Tillich's paradoxical statements or aphorisms:

- "He who participates in God participates in eternity. But in order to participate in him you must be accepted by him and you must have accepted his acceptance of you." pg. 170

- "The courage to be is an expression of faith and what "faith" means must be understood through the courage to be." pg. 172

- "Faith is not an opinion but a state. It is the state of being grasped by the power of being, which transcends everything that is, and in which everything that is, participates." pg. 173

The major criticism that I have of Tillich's thought as represented in this book is that he failed to link the "courage to be" or faith with love. Ultimately love is the power of being. And God is not only being itself but also love. They are inseparable.

I have never read a book by Camus I didn't like, and this series of essays on man's inclination if not inborne need to rebel is one more example how how Camus has cemented himself as one of the greatest authors of the twentieth century.
I only wish I had read this book when I was younger, I would have gained a better navigator for my own rebellious nature. Camus' research is provided in a series of essays that cover every major concept man has to rebel against. His examples are historic, unique, and facinating.

Camus' The Rebel has stood the test of time and will continue to educate, inspire and empower those who read his essay. This book influenced MLK who understood the spirit of rebellion and applied it's principles. Whether we talk Gandhi, Sade, Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson, Dean, Brando... the list goes on. With rebellion awareness is born. Read The Rebel and change your life... quit your job. End a dead-end relationship. Move on. Fight a law. Disagree with someone. Color outside the lines. Say no. Say no instead of yes. Start a revolution and change the world. Sedition is the way to a better existence.

Camus' The Rebel is yet another brilliant outcry of the human conscience, the urge to revolt and man's timeless struggle against the conditions of his existence. Albert Camus is one of the most profoundly influential thinkers of this century. The Rebel is a definite must read for lovers of L'etranger and Myth of Sisyphus. Camus maintains his signature style of short, simple yet hard-hitting sentences that leave a lot to the imagination, thus giving the reader a chance to re-create their our vision. One of the best writers to come out of France, Camus' sharp eye toward the French Revolution shows how inevitably the course of revolution leads to tyranny. Much like his predecessors such as Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, Albert Camus writes with an unshakable decency and his work is eloquent and supremely rational.

I first became interested in Albert Camus after reading a quote from The Rebel online. "I rebel, therefore we exist" was the quote, and I must admit that, after reading the book, there has never been anything truer written. When I was in a bookstore a few months ago I found a copy of The Rebel, which is apparently a rare sight these days, since The Rebel is often ignored. Camus is one of the most famous writers of the 20th century, so why would one of his masterpieces be ignored?

It has been ignored, from what I can gather, because it is a philosophical work in which Camus pulls no punches and examines thoroughly why the excessive crime and violence of our era exist. Camus explains how, in both philosophy and politics, the reigning attitude has been one of nihilism for the past two centuries. This nihilism, being necessarily without an aim, leads to dictatorship and gross amounts of suffering for humans, no matter what principles it claims on the surface. Camus systematically destroys those who have used the philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, surrealism, u.s.w., to justify their murderous plots.

Camus proposes that instead of nihilism and murder, we take to heart the ancient concepts of moderation and responsibility. Camus' destruction of modern governents and his proposals of these ancient ideas seem to have made this book unpopular. In this era of oppression, it is easy to ignore what offends us or makes us think. Camus gives the reader no choice. He must either raise a defiant fist to the giants of power, or he must give way to these minds that are utterly without scruples. I admire Camus deeply because of this--he has summed up the ideas I have been carrying around for years--but some will be deeply hurt by his comments. I leave you with a final thought: everyone is partly to blame for the state of the present and the future. You have the choice to make it either good or bad.

This book followed his 'The Myth of Sisyphus'. Camus explains in the beginning that while his previous work was about the question of suicide, this one is about the other aspect of taking human lives - other people's lives (murder). The book however is not so much about murder, as it is about the ethics of rebellion.

At a deeper ideological level, Camus was reacting to the excesses of Soviet style communism with which he disagreed. He felt that rebellion is always at the risk of falling prey to the very tyranny it revolts against and destroys.

Camus however does not believe that rebellion is therefore not desirable. His humanitarian ideals harmonize with the dream of rebellion. So he tries to answer the question of how rebellion can escape falling prey to tyranny, albiet unsuccessfully, by taking the examples of Russian nihilists who fought tyranny through murder, but nevertheless punished themsleves for that act (because the act of murder becomes tyrranny if routinized).

In all his works, Camus is generally good with analysis but poor in his conclusions. This book is brilliant for its analysis of the ethics of rebellion and the dilemmas of a rebel. It raises important questions and leaves you free to find your own answers. That also harmonizes better with the spirit of existentialism.

This book felt to me strangely intimate, and understanding when I first read it. Laing, who was a clinical psychiatrist, presents case studies of people who feel overly self-conscious and self-critical, fearful to be on the street alone, hiding from social contact -- common enough feelings which he treats with supreme empathy, not judgement or haste to reform. He explains in the preface his analysis is based on existenstial thought, yet, he avoids the amoralistic tendencies of this genre of philosophy. His emphasis is more on the process of alienation of self from self, and inner self from outer self, into a "split." He gives analysis of the so-described schizoid and schizophrenic personality, attempts to analyze why a person slips into so-called "psychosis" -- in his analysis a schizophrenic person is forming a logical reaction to an untenable situation. Here he leans on other writers, such as Gregory Bateson's double-bind theory.

Laing's writing is poetic in some places, and is literate in a way psychology books seldom are. i recommend this book highly to anyone who wants to know more about their own behavior, and others'.

In this valuable study, Dr Laing proposes to examine the way some individuals are very proficient in acquiring a false self in order to adapt to false realities and to give an account of specifically personal forms of depersonalisation and disintegration. It is no small task for the therapist to articulate what the patient's "world" is and his way of being in it in order to outline his psychopathology. The author states that if we look at his actions as signs of a disease, we impose categories of thoughts on the patient in our effort to try to explain his mental state and it isn't easy for the therapist to transpose himself into the patient's strange and alien view of world in order to understand his existential position.
Dr Laing states that many patients suffer from "ontological insecurity" because they feel insubstantial, the ordinary circumstances of life constituting a continual threat to their own existence. He mentions personalities like Franz Kafka, Samuel Beckett and Francis Bacon. Then Dr Laing proceeds by giving the account of three forms of anxiety encountered by the ontologically insecure subject: engulfment, implosion and petrification. To illustrate these three forms, the author describes the case of Mrs R. who suffered from agoraphobia and schizohphrenic withdrawal.
Interestingly enough, the schizoid individual constantly feels vulnerable as he is exposed by the look of another person and that is why he fears live dialectical relationships with live people and prefers to relate himself to depersonalised persons or to phantoms of his own fantasies, thus the distinction between the "embodied" and "unembodied" self. Such an individual is afraid of the world, frightened that any impingement will be total and engulfing. He is afraid of letting himself "go", of coming out of himself or of losing himself because he feels that he will be depleted, exhausted, emptied, robbed or sucked dry. So for the schizoid individual, direct participation in life is felt as being at a risk of being destroyed by life. One aspect of this individual's ontological insecurity is the precariousness of his subjective sense of his own aliveness and the sense that others threaten this tentative feeling. The schizoid individual strongly believes in his own destructiveness by others. This view is in accord to the existentialist's philosophy represented by Jean-Paul Sartre who stated in his famous theatre play "Huis Clos" that "L'enfer, c'est les autres."
Thus a false self can arise in the individual which is in compliance with the intentions and expectations of the other or with what are imagined to be the other's intentions or expectations. Indeed, the self-conscious person feels he is more the object of other people's interest than in fact he is. And so the schizoid individual carries out defences like being like everyone else, being someone other than oneself, playing a part, being nobody or being incognito and anonymous. So if the gaze of others is experienced as a threat, there is a constant dread and resentment at being turned into someone else's thing (what Sartre called "l'être-pour-autrui"), of being penetrated by him, and a sense of being in someone else's power and control. Freedom then consists in being inaccessible. Love too for schizoid individuals is viewed as disguised persecution since it aims to turn him into an object of the other.
This type of individual can be himself in safety only in isolation. With others he plays an elaborate game of pretence and his social life is felt to be false and futile. But the more he keeps his "true self" concealed and unseen, the more he presents to others a false front and the more compulsive this fake presentation of himself becomes. This can lead to a complete disintegration of the personality.

This is an interesting book on how schizophrenia is more of an 'existential' problem than an illness. I think it has some real practical applications for those who work with this population. I wouldn't, however, throw out the more clinical way of viewing psychosis.

In particular, I endorse the back cover of another of his books, where it says that schizophrenics constantly try to escape because they perceive it is impossible to fulfill their needs. He stated it in a better way, of course; this is just how I remember it.

i just think that this book should be one that everyone reads at some point in their lives (sooner rather than later!). it really gives you something special, something i have very rarely experienced in a book. open the book and open your mind!