Existentialism Books

Robert Stern's commentary on Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit is another strong addition in the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook series. Even by the arcane standards of German idealism Hegel's Phenomenology is a notoriously difficult text, at once, both, beautifully poetic and frustratingly specious. It can be impenetrable for the first-time reader if approached without the assistance of a skilled guide (or two). Following are comments for potential purchasers:

First. Stern is readable, short and clear - not overly laden with technical jargon. More advanced students may wish to augment this text with a more detailed commentary from the likes of Harris, Hyppolite or Lauer.

Second. Citations are referenced to Miller's standard English translation of the Phenomenology.

Third. A modest drawback is the lack of a glossary. Hegelian terminology can be especially difficult, hence some guidance would be useful.

Fourth. Jay Bernstein has a wonderful yearlong graduate-level course discussing the Phenomenology available on-line for no cost at BernsteinTapes.com. Kudos to the folks who have made this available, it is an outstanding resource.

Overall, I highly recommend Stern's commentary for readers approaching the Phenomenology for the first time. Even with this excellent guide, however, a solid background in academic philosophy is probably required to fully appreciate Hegel.

An introduction to Hegel is, in the first place, a certain barbarism. Given the emphasis that Hegel himself put on the act of pursuing the movement of The Phenomenology as a literary experience, we should be perhaps a bit hesitant to have such an experience augmented and, hence, swayed towards a particular reading. But, let's face it, The Phenomenology is so stuffed full of complex neologisms, seemingly circumlocutious sentences, and haphazard diversions as to likely lose the uninitiated within a few pages. It would seem that would really be helpful for those who haven't cut their teeth on Hegel yet would be an introduction to Hegel's style, both literary and philosophical, that would ease their entry into The PDG. Unfortunately, Stern's intro is much less a passage into Hegel, than a shortcut around him. Nowhere in "Hegel and The Phenomenology of Spirit" will you find an explanation of negativity, synthesis, or movement per se; they have been displaced in favor of more readily intelligible paraphrases, if at all directly mentioned. Hegel quotations appear periodically throughot the text, but without any insight into their meaning as such. To an unaccustomed reader, it probably seems like Stern is interpreting nebulous, equivocal poems. The bare bones outline structure of the Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks makes them much less amenable to thinkers like Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, etc. whose style and precision with words eludes a simple rephrasing. Much like a book on Heidegger that didn't mention dasein, concealment, or concern would, Hegel and the Phenomenology Of Spirit leaves us with little assisstance in penetrating the actual text itself. Like many others, it is a good example of dry-humping an integral work in the history of philosophy.

This book about three of my favorite thinkers was one of the easiest books I have read, I'm grateful that it also introduced me to the work of a forth great thinker: Kierkegaard.

Although I might disagree that the four men are directly related to existentialism (If Nietzsche was alive he would've agreed with me.), but there is no doubt all four writers were alienated from the society they rejected, and each in his own way embarked on a quest to find the truth.

I'm at a loss to explain why this book is accused of having a "Christian-centric focus", Mr. Hubben simply presented the biographies objectively, and related them to the work's of other great authors.
Let us not forget that the theme of the four men's lives was being rejected (mainly by the church and society) for not believing what was believed and not going blindly with the flow.

Mr. Hubben accurately reports the suffering of the four men on totally different levels, he didn't suggest in any way that embracing Christ would've been a better choice:
1- Kierkegaard who opposed the church not Christianity.
2- Dostoevsky who chose a leap of faith, and talked of Christ almost in all of his work, but still never stopped questioning and doubting.
3- Nietzsche who decided to revolt against all rules and chose to be an atheist.
4- Kafka, a non believer among Jews, who felt a profound sense of alienation from society as well.

How can the enumeration of the facts surrounding the lives of these four men be described as pro-Christian???

The religion/faith factor in these four men's lives can't be ignored while studying their lives, but that doesn't mean necessarily the author is presenting a pro-Christian point of view. The four men were not chosen as the subject of this book to challenge any religious values, but simply to celebrate great minds and free spirits that were not afraid of expressing themselves.

This book is a good objective overview of four remarkable thinkers, who were never appreciated during their lives.

My review is very much in line with that of another reviewer, Mr. Townshend. This book by Hubben is a precious and rare volume that fully appreciates the prophetic role of four great thinkers in perceiving and describing the underlying spiritual failure of 19th century Europe. They see that despite European colonial success, middle class religiosity, stable social values, high rates of literacy, incredible industrial productivity, identification with "Christian civilization" [sic], and high level philosophical, theological, artistic, and musical creativity, they each see that underneath lies incredible spiritual emptiness, evil of every kind, chaos, and doom. These "underlying issues" are at the root of the social, economic, and political crises that were the occasion of World Wars I and II, the Nazi holocaust "experiment," and Leninist/Stalinist/post-Stalinist USSR. Especially with Doestoevsky and Kierkegaard, he also sees a reaching out to Christ, seeking a new inward path of connection. These two men were self-consciously struggling in the presence of Christ, just as the author describes common folks who are Christian miners are struggling to affirm their faith in the midst of the daily struggle. A faith affirmed from a secure middle class vantage point is not a faith that will lift mankind out of the morass of his darkness, or out of what Kirkegaard calls "the aesthetic stage." Rather, man must emerge from this darkness (it is a darkness that can afflict so-called Christians as well as atheists) by emergence into a Christ-centered moral and religious "stage."
I totally disagree with the idea that the Christ-centered statements in this book make it too polemical and intellectually dishonest. Rather, the author, Mr. Hubben, has transcended, and helps all to see, that by contrast with a remarkable exposition of "darkness" by these authors we can better see the vibrant hope that exists in "the light."

The book contains incorrect information: In the section about Dostoevsky, on page 129, Hubben discusses the main themes of Dostoevsky's masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov; but he misconstrues Ivan Karamazov's thesis. Hubben portrays Ivan as the symbol of atheist heartlessness by stating that this character was willing to sacrifice one innocent child for the happiness of mankind, while Alyosha Karamazov (the symbol of Christian goodness and purity) would not support such a proposition. However, in the book, Ivan was actually disgusted by the idea of allowing one innocent child to suffer and die for the sake of human happiness; he was weary of human amorality.

In reading more of the book, it was clear to me why Hubben made such an error: He saw goodness in Christianity and gloom in Atheism; those were the black and white lines he drew, and the lense through which he wrote the book. So it is understandable that he would read, incorrectly, a heartless statement coming from an atheist character, and a kind rebuttal from a pure Christian character; he needed it to fit in with his agenda.

Unfortunately, a person looking for facts in this book might trip over a lot of conjecture--especially in the Nietzsche section--and downright wrong information. When you write about someone else's life and they are the focus, you shouldn't be so liberal in inserting your own world views.

Excellent overview of the major themes characterizing the work of these thinkers. Balanced presentation of view points and interesting biographical information included. I've read all of these authors for decades and this book ties in major threads beautifully. Extremely insightful and well written. In fact, I can't put it down and I'm anxious to revisit Nietzsche and Kafka with the analyses provided in this book.

The book is really a veiled homage to Christianity and criticism of the growing atheism in 1950's Europe, rather than an objective critique upon four existentialist writers.
The Kafka segment was even mildly offensive, as the author implied that it was Kafka's Judaism which provoked his misery and his books were therefore products of godlessness.
The only useful information I gathered was an introduction to Kierkegaard's zealous Christian beliefs and perhaps a grain of insight into Dostoevsky's vacillation between Christian ideologies.
I must admit that, in a fit of disappointment, I considered that the author of the book should be banned from writing any further upon European exhistentialists and be made to burn every copy of all published works copiously by hand.

Nietzsche in 90 minutes? This worthless attempt to present Friedrich Nietzsche's very profound and complex ideas in a concise form as a quick read for the reader utterly fails in every aspect! Paul Strathern only gives a very, very brief outline of Nietzsche's philosophy and a short biography of his life interspersed with numerous disparaging remarks about Nietzsche. One gets the idea that Paul Strathern thinks that Nietzsche was just a megalomaniacal joke who took himself too seriously. He writes off all of his philosophical works as "childish" and only understandable to teenagers. Although extremely easy to read, "Nietzsche in 90 Minutes" is an extremely depthless, shallow book that does not clarify or shed light on any of Nietzsche's ideas. For anyone that is interested in learning more about Friedrich Nietzsche: DON'T BUY THIS BOOK!!!!

I can't find any value in a work like this - in this day and age, one can surf the web for 90 minutes and be far more enlightened than this.
Alot of the time I know am in the presence of someone who cannot stand the grandness of Nietzsche's vision - he relays this to the listener in tone and weasel words. The author doesn't like Nietzsche - which for a reader is worse than hating.

The rest of the time, one has the author makes it his job to apologize for the Nietzsche's excesses twisted by those who would willfully distort the racial philosophy, etc.

To the writer's credit? If you hate Nietzsche, you can use this to make yourself sound smarter in your argument with a Nietzsche-lover. If you haven't read him, you won't want to.

The majority of this book gives a biographical sketch of his life and is well done, particularly in being against Anti-Semitism and his relation to Wagner. It is generally lighthearted (but I sure wouldn't agree that Dostoevsky and Hesse are unreadable unless you're a teenager). Perhaps a few more "minutes" could have been spent on his key philosophical concepts, with just 2 pages on "The Will To Power", and three on "The Superman". Since Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms he would seem to be ideal for an abbreviated work, but his ideas do not come through here. Readers of this may enjoy his short piece "The Madman". I think more post-WW II or post-modern treatment of Nietzsche would have been helpful. Favorite quote from the book "Beware of syphilitics preaching morals" - Saul Bellow, Herzog. A few quotes not included in the book:
"That which does not kill you makes you stronger".
"The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for dominion of the earth - the compulsion of large-scale politics".
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you".

I bought this book because I wanted a brief biographical overview of Nietzsche. To this extent, the book was very pleasing. The large type and low number pages made it a very quick read (less than 90 minutes). It was worth purchasing (to me) for these points

A portion of the book is dedicated to a brief synopsis of Nietzsche's philosophy. I found this to be useless. I don't feel the coverage in this area was unbiased. There are a lot of points where the author offers his own opinions which are typically contradictory to Nietzsche. Having an opinion is fine but it doesn't belong in an overview text.

With all of this, it was worth reading for the mini-biography. Certainly, this won't be the only book you will need to read on Nietzsche if you are interested in learning about him. Aside from Nietzsche's own works Walter Kaufmann is a good area to start.

In this small work Strathern tells the story of the lonely life of Nietzsche. He also presents a brief introduction to his thought, analyzing and demolishing some of the key concepts such as 'Ubermensch- Superman' and ' the Eternal Return'. Nietzsche like so many of the great philosophers was orphaned as a child. In his case he lost his father and was raised by a household of women which perhaps explain one very ugly side of his thought, his misogyny. The famous aphorism about women loving to be beaten is truly a black mark on a thinker and person who most likely never beat anyone and in fact whose last sane act outside the loony bin was rushing to kiss in the street a horse that had just been beaten by its master. Strathern conjectures that Nietzsche's syphillis was contracted early and was responsible for the extraordinarily pain- filled life he led. He did not make it to a real love relationship , and his life after he left the university world was largely long walks by himself thinking.
Strathern tells the story of the Wagner connection well, and underlines Nietzsche's courage and integrity in breaking with the substitute- father who turned out to be a pathetically bogus half- rate thinker and vicious anti- Semite.
Nietzsche understand that systematic philosophy in the Kantian- Hegelian form was dead. His own brilliant works of aphorisms and apercus live in a way the monstrous systematic works do not. Nietzsche is without question one of the great literary stylists of the philosophers and perhaps the most supreme aphorist of all.
Strathern does not really go into a major theme of Nietzsche the whole re-evaluation of values, the whole effort to undermine Christian ethics and replace them with an aesthetic of hard demanding excellence and superior powers. Unfortunately the Nietzschean rhetoric is tainted by contempt and arrogance. And the total distortion of his thought wrought on it by his Nazi- sister and heir , and the Nazis themselves mean his misinterpretation contributed to the greatest crimes in human history. This is not a distinction any philosopher would want, and especially Nietzsche who by and large despised the anti- Semites of his own time.
The most famous of all of Nietzsche's remarks and parables is of course the 'God is dead' one. The famous graffiti reply,( " Nietzsche is dead" God) does reflect the truth that we are in a historical period in which return to religion , even fundamentalist religion has seemed to sweep the Nietzschean nay away.
As to the lasting significance of the thought of Nietzsche Strathern focuses on the ' will to power' as important contribution. About this I also have my doubts and it seems to me that Nietzsche's place is assured in the history of Western thought, in what might be called the genre of poetic thought- but that there is little of lasting value in the thought itself. But that is only one reader's judgment and certainly not a superhuman one or one that should be taken as if came from the voice of a would- be- prophet.

mr Wolin doesn't like Heidegger. Therefore, he feels compelled to attack Jews who like Heidegger. Derrida. Levinas. Arendt. In my opinion, Mr. Wolin is a reactionary, with a deep aversion to philosophers (Heidegger, Derrida, Levinas, Arendt) of far greater talent and intelligence.

This book ends by stating "Only an understanding of Heidegger's children that appreciates their relationship to the German catastrophe and the traumas it bred will prove capable of doing justice to their powerful and complex philosophical legacy." This sentence could as easily have begun the book, for it effectively introduces what Wolin set out to do: to present the intellectual and historical roots of Heidegger's "children" (Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, Herbert Marcuse).

Whether he succeeds in this depends upon how one understands the lineage of intellectual development, and how to account for any thinking that appears new. Wolin is excellent at providing parallel and complementary ideas from the milieu in which each of the "children" lived and worked. He has a gifted eye for similar and potentially influential observations and arguments; whether that means he has explained the finished product represented by each of the title subjects' works, is a distinct question.

I'm glad to have read Wolin--it was time worth spending. There were numerous proofreading errors ('it' instead of 'if', e.g.) that are unsettling in a mode of writing that heavily depends upon precision about often complex distinctions, but the gist of his writing is never in doubt. My understanding of Heidegger's philosophy and specifically of his relationship to national socialism, has definitely been enhanced.

It is Wolin's core use of what I call "contagion theory," that gives me greatest pause about both his analysis in this volume and the overall utility of his work. I found myself mentally summoning a voice from America's Fifties, asking "Have you ever been, or are you now..." in considering just how I should frame and weigh the by-now predictable Wolin approach in addressing thinkers of whom he disapproves.

For disapproval it is, far more than mere disagreement. Give the man his due: he's thoughtful and obviously bright. Whether this means his "contagion" analysis is substantively or even fatally flawed, is for me an open question...as is whether it would be time well spent to read yet another of his volumes.

Richard Wolin's "Heidegger's Children" is an overview of Heidegger's pupils, Heidegger's effect on them philosophically and the position of Heidegger's political choices in this relation. Judging by the tone and a general lack of depth, the book is mostly intended for people of intellectual caliber but not very well-versed in the subject, which makes it excellent for academics who know nothing about Heidegger, for example. Of course this will not satisfy any real Heidegger scholar, but contrary to other reviewers, I don't think that's necessarily a problem.

Wolin's rapid overview of the philosophies of Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas and Herbert Marcuse is generally good, and critical where deserved. He never really goes into the issues with their works themselves, but stays on the subject of the connection between their thought and Heidegger, often mainly relying on biographical analysis. Wolin's overall tone in reflecting on Heidegger and his pupils is that of the 'left-liberal' (continentally speaking) wondering what could have gone wrong, which is a bit annoying at times, but should not bother the reader too much.

On the whole, the book succeeds well for its purpose, but is a little superficial. One also would have wished that the two chapters on Heidegger himself had been in the front of the book instead of the back, since now one is basically 'reading backwards' into what Heidegger thought, so to speak. The conclusion is also rather stronger in criticism than the book itself allows. Therefore, I would recommend it mostly for intellectuals who want a basic overview of four of Heidegger's main pupils, but not for those knowledgeable about Heidegger or interested in an in-depth analysis of his work.

Wolin appears to be a decent philospher and researcher, but
he needs to learn how to write. Herky jerky style and skewed syntax make this one an almost impossible read. Sorry folks, but
I have to rate this one as unintelligable garble.

The controversy over Heidegger is likely to continue into future generations. One of the great intellectuals of the twentieth century, he blotted his copybook (so to speak) by becoming one of the leading intellectuals of the National-Socialist movement in Germany in the 1930s, changing from a professor who attracted the best and brightest of students from all over Europe to one of the more rigid and dogmatic defenders of Nazi ideals, even at the expense of colleagues, students and friends. Even after the destruction of Germany, Heidegger remained unrepentent about his history and views.

This book, while a stand-alone text, represents the conclusion of a multi-volume task to examine Heidegger's work and intellectual legacy. The first two texts, 'The Politics of Being' and 'The Heidegger Controversy', represented an attempt to look both the politics and the philosophy of Heidegger -- the latter book having created a bit of a fire-storm due to the inclusion of an article by Derrida, who objected to the inclusion.

One of the more bizarre twists in the tale of Heidegger, however, was in the continuing intellectual development of his legacy among his Jewish students. Many of the top students in Heidegger's following in the 1920s and early 1930s were Jewish, and they would ultimately have to reconcile their associations and attachments to Heidegger (the person and the philosophical ideas) in response or reaction to his actions. Richard Wolin's text looks specifically at four key figures: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas and Herbert Marcuse.

All of these four thinkers, acclaimed in their own rights, considered themselves more assimilated Germans than Jews; however, this was not the thinking of the powers-that-were in the 1930s/40s Germany. Each would have to, in the course of careers including academia and writing, have to reconcile to the past idolisation of Heidegger. Germany was, after all, the centre of culture, a nation of writers and thinkers, all to go horribly mad. Wolin's introductory chapter sets a context -- the real problem for Heidegger's students was to determine whether or not there was something integral, something necessary in the connection between the political totalitarian and vicious National-Socialism and Heidegger's existentialist ideas. Wolin gives a brief overview of the development of philosophy to existentialism. In the second chapter, Wolin gives a brief history of German-Jewish relationships, and looks to the points of divergence that culminated in holocaust.

Wolin devotes a chapter to each of the key 'children'. Hannah Arendt was not only Heidegger's student, but also carried on an affair with him, making Heidegger's betrayal personal as well as political. Arendt's problem was not just a 'Heidegger problem', but also a 'Jewish problem', in the sense of her writing allowing that the line between victim and villain was not as distinct as might be believed. Karl Lowith is less well known outside the German speaking world, but his work in philosophy has made him a significant figure, particularly in examining the history of philosophical development -- this development is very much in line with much of Heidegger's methodology, despite the obvious problem that such development leads to a Heidegger. Hans Jonas did confront Heidegger's past openly and publically, in lecture format no less, causing a shift from theological Heideggerian developments such that the trend fell quickly from vogue. Herbert Marcuse is perhaps the most interesting development among Heidegger's children, having been more of an interested pupil rather than proto-disciple; Marcuse combined Heideggerian influences into a general Marxist framework.

In the final chapters, Wolin looks at the overall synthesis and development of these ideas, the post-war German and European intellectual experience, and the problems and strengths that continue from Heidegger's primary work, 'Being and Time". In the conclusion, Wolin states that while it is hard to find better histories of philosophy than those produced by Heidegger and his students, they make the mistakes of confusing philosophy and history, and this can also explain part of Heidegger's general political trouble.

There are a few issues -- Wolin is occasionally choppy, and sometimes repetitious needlessly. Also, Wolin's lack of inclusion of a few key figures (Strauss comes to mind here) leaves something to be desired. However, the construction with the four figures here is well-done and thorough. This is a fascinating text, highlighting a lesser-known but strangely pervasive strand in intellectual history, and helps to highlight difficulties and opportunities in the continuing development out of the work of Heidegger.

As others have written here, skip this and get Sartre for Beginners instead. That book, while not comprehensive, does a better job of fleshing out most of his major concepts in a more useful fashion. This book you just sit down and read. The for Beginners series is a better reference that you can turn to again and again to refesh you knowledge.

This is one of the best works in this series. Strathern does not write about Sartre uncritically, but he writes about him with great sympathy and understanding. He retells the story of Sartre's unusual childhood and explains how and why he became a person who always heard the sound of his own drummer. And even the exposition of Sartre as a philosopher illustrates this point, as Sartre continually goes in a way of his own. Moreover the explication of the background to Sartre's major philosophical works is the most clear that I know. He shows how Husserl's effort to synthesize rationalism and empiricism in his phenomenology provides a take- off point for Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness'. There is also a brief but insightful description of 'Being and Nothingness' and its relation to the work of Heidegger. Strathern stresses that Sartre continually moved despite his radical individualism in the direction of taking responsibility for the world. He may have erred in practical political judgment again and again but he showed a courage in standing up for what he believed in. Strathern also gives us a clue to the famous Sartre- Beauvoir relationship so important to the life and work of both. This through the reading of the orphan Sartre's relation to his mother who was in some ways more sister to him than mother. The Sartre- Beauvoir alliance served them both long after it ceased to be a romantic relationship. Strathern comments that their 'open relationship' was something courageously 'new'for its time- a claim that a few old- fashioned folks like myself might have other terminology for. All in all this is a very fine piece of work. One feels in it Strathern's greater closeness to Sartre than to any other of the philosophers he has written about.

One of the great things about the internet is that everyone has access to it. One of the problems with the internet is that everyone has access to it. This book "Sartre in 90 Minutes" by Paul Strathern is a fine book that doesn't pretend to be anything more than it claims to be. It is an excellent introduction to Sartre and is much more approachable than the faulty traslations from French that make reading Sartre like swimming in quicksand. Anyone who cannot gain a basic understanding of Sartre's basic premises from reading this book should give up on reading. It provides a succinct and comprehensive explanation of the philosopher, the events that shaped him and his place in history.

One always suspects that totally negative reviews are written by someone who has an ax to grind, another book they wish to promote, or by people who in failing to comprehend what they have read compensate by pointing the blame at the author rather than their own lack of lucidity.

It has been said that one million monkeys with one million typewriters could eventually dupliate the works of Shakespeare. The internet and the millions of monkeys sitting at their keyboards have proved that claim to be false.

This book merits no review. It is insulting to mislead anyone to think he/she can understand Jean Paul Sartre in ninety minutes. Most people do not have the intelligence to understand his ideas; those who do spend years thinking. It isn't pablum, and there is no clue if you don't have a brain. There are those who get it and those who don't. A book which claims to have the key should have been written on disposable paper.

In contrast to the other reviewers here, I found this to be quite good. Granted, it is extremely basic but that is it's stated purpose. It doesn't claim to be a comprehensive analysis of Sartre's ideas, merely a biographical jumping-off point for those with no prior exposure to the man.

These "IN 90 MINUTES" books are wonderful introductions to the greatest minds of the Western world. I take sincere issue with those (see review below) who would attempt to cloak the study of philosophy behind a smokescreen of intellectual elitism. Such snobbery is contradictory to the goals of all philosophical thought.

Philosophy is for EVERYONE!

Sartre is difficult, yes, but not beyond the intelligence of anyone truly interested and dedicated to understanding.

I recommend this book without reservation.

What would Kierkegaard have thought about this book?
He would have perhaps appreciated Stathern's humor, his narrative skill, his quickness of mind, his emphasizing Kierkegaard's thought as directed not to abstraction but to 'lived life.' But he probably would have resented the effort to reduce the complexities of his thought, their contradictions and dialectical intricacies to easily digestible form.
For Kierkegaard 'difficulty' in itself has a value, and the path of the true truth seeker is not one which can be achieved readily, easily without suffering.
The essence of Kierkegaard can only be found in confronting his own complex, and highly qualified prose.
I like Strathern's books very much, but it seems to me here he chose a subject not especially amenable to this kind of treatment.

The timelines and bibliography are good. Otherwise, I would say this book reminds me of an offhand attempt to dispose of a topic the author has little interest in or sympathy for. Just to make the series complete. Shallow. If you want to read a much better Kierkegaard intro, try Donald D. Palmer's Kierkegaard for Beginners. It takes a little longer than 90 minutes, but it's written with gusto.

This book was dismal. Not only did the author fail to address Kierkegaards main ideas, he completely rewrote who Kierkegaard was disregarding or not knowing that Kierkegaard had responded to many of his "insightful" critiques. There were many false assertions in this book, but I will only list two.

(1) Paul asserts that Kierkegaard believed that humans should ethically cease to procreate so that God's work could be finished. Where did Kierkegaard ever say this? Paul draws this notion from Kierkegaard's decision to remain single in order to devote himself to writing. Kierkegaard would never have made such an idiotic absolute statement about something that he would see as relative to one's walk with God. This is one example that shows a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Kierkegaard. This bias colors the whole reading experience.

(2) Paul asserts that in Kierkegaard's description of despair, Kierkegaard contradicts himself by asserting being as opposed to becoming. One can easily see the synthesis of the two if one has but a little knowledge of Christianity. An individual in him or herself is becoming and is not yet finished. An individual in God is a finished work, aka being. God according to scipture is the author and finisher of a believers faith. A believer in time is becoming. A believer in eternity is complete. Paul's confusion comes from making becoming and being logically opposed (infinite becoming vs eternal being?). Kierkegaard sees one leading to the other.

This book is a waste of time. Paul does not understand Kierkegaard as well as he would like his reader to believe. According to Paul, it is amazing that Kierkegaard had some good ideas mixed in with all of his rubbish. Unfortunately, Paul's book is pretty much pure rubish.

Strathern is a master at this kind of work, which mixes biography, critical analysis, historical context and humor all in a concise, informative & entertaining package. He lists a time line for the philosopher, his place in world/philosophic history & a selection of works for furthur reading. This series of books by Strathern is a wonderful course in Philosophy 101 without ever having to go to college, all presented in plain, easy to understand English without being bogged down with philosophy's often confusing vernacular. If you are expecting an in-depth review or complete analysis of the philosopher's life & work, read another book. This is meant to be a quick, concise overview & that's just what it provides. There's suggested readings listed in the back for people who want to investigate Kierkegaard's life & works more thoroughly.

This book should have CAUTION written on it, as it is dangerous. Let me give you a few examples:

1) On page 7 it says, "Kierkegaard wasn't really a philosopher at all. At least not in the academic sense." If we say that academic philosophy does not recognize Kierkegaard as a philosopher we must also recognize that Kierkegaard thinks academic philosophy is a nest of charlatans and liars who have no right to judge his work. For Kierkegaard, Socrates is the paradigmatic philosopher. Imagine, for a moment, Plato's dialogue Protagoras. There is Socrates, who receives no money for teaching because he has nothing to teach. There are, on the other hand, the sophists, who claim to be able to teach the Sciences, real knowledge, in return for pay. Who does the academic philosopher resemble: Socrates or the sophist? Who does Kierkegaard more resemble? If Kierkegaard is not a philosopher, how is Socrates one? Certainly, Kierkegaard never claimed to be a philosopher (despite his Doctorate in Philosophy), calling himself a poet, but it must always be remembered that this is because he holds academic philosophers in contempt.

2) On page 8 is the claim that Kierkegaard invented existentialism, a claim about as absurd as Socrates invented philosophy or Jesus, Christianity. Sartre invented existentialism and then enlisted "precursors" to support the claim that he hadn't. Existentialism is one interpretation of Kierkegaard's work and is probably not the best one. Now that Post-Modernism is all the rage, Kierkegaard is being seen as Post-Modern (see Both-And by Michael Strawser). The problem is that what you bring to Kierkegaard is what you get out of him and if you are looking for existentialism in Kierkegaard, you will find it, whether its there or not.

3) In the chapter on "Life and Works" one of the most pervasive and difficult to dispell error about Kierkegaard is presented as fact. The author describes the pseudonymous authorship as Kierkegaard's attempt to disguise himself. This is true enough. The problem is that a pseudonym did nothing, in a small town like Copenhagen, to disguise his identity. Everybody in town knew who the author of Either/Or was. So clearly to say as the author did, "Once again Kierkegaard found himself in a pickle. . . .Put simply he wanted to hide behind a pseudonym, yet at the same time he wished to make it obvious it was a pseudonym"(p. 35) is disingenuous. Hello, I think everybody is going to figure out that A and B are not real names. I don't think he needs to signal people that these are pseudonyms. So what has Kierkegaard got to hide. Himself. He is trying to get free of his own history. He creates, not just pseudonyms, but characters which themselves embody philosophical ideas. By coming to understand the expressions, concerns and moods of these characters, a careful reader comes to understand a philosophical idea (for instance, in either /Or A embodies the aesthetic existence sphere and B the ethical sphere). There is a danger therefore in talking too much about Regine Olsen or Michael P. Kierkegaard as the source or meaning of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works. Then one has a source for pat answers about Kierkegaard's meaning with no real interpretive depth. As long as one continues talking about Kierkegaard upbringing or his engagement one risks a surface interpretation displacing any hope of a deeper understanding.

I suggest Douglas Mullen's book Self-deception and cowardice in the Present Age, or Parables of Kierkegaard by Thomas Oden as alternatives.

I have to be the sensible voice of dissent on this one: having read the Hollingdale and Kaufmann translations of these books, and although Golffing was no authority par excellance on Nietzsche (but rather a poet--not utterly devoid of perspective), I think this particular pair of translated works has its necessary place among the more respected editions. Yes, it does lack the trademark styles and general passion characteristic of Nietzsche's writings--but only for the initiated reader; this is actually a perfect edition for the rookie, the newbie: it takes the overwhelming aspect away, it eases the fresh reader into the shock and rapidity of the stream of thought, it presents the subject matter in a way that would garner an undergrad or graduate student "props" as a brilliant writer with a universal style. Obviously, as one becomes more attuned to these vibes, they will want to reach for the more difficult readings--not merely to test their comprehension skills, but for personal aesthetics as well, like the feeling of accomplishment. The more seasoned reader knows that Nietzsche is all about personality (he is literary-style, personified) and passion, but they should as well note that our author here is not accessible to everyone the same way (let alone with ease, if at all). I still found substance here, I found a less colorful rendition of thematic scope, I found a "Nietzsche for Beginners"--but why hate on Golffing as a result?; and considering the growing popularity of the author, the latecomers will all have to step through that door in some fashion, and this book does a better than average job of allowing just that.

"Die, Jew!" These words and other anti-Semitist phrases echo through the reader's mind as he studies this piece. Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is the powerful piece of literature with more than controversial ideals. Upon reading it, one gets the sense that this work is the product of a demented, enraged mind. In the course of this reading, Nietzsche shows his ability to captivate a reader with his reason, no matter how twisted his reason is. After reading this selection I came to the assumption that Nietzsche used his brilliant mind to make broad, generalized attacks against those whom he claims are responsible for the problems in the world.
Nietzsche sees a problem with the way morals and values are carried out in our society. The strong are seen as forbidding and the weak are viewed as righteous. He believes that this is an inversion of morals which originates from the hatred of Jews transferred through the Gospel of Christianity. He assumes that any belief in God or values based on kindness is based on personal weakness and is the fruit of the true evil in the world. Morals and values which place a restriction on the strong and favor the weak are the cause for the unjust society. Nietzsche also has a modal for the great controversy these past two thousand years. He uses the titles the dispute "Rome vs. Israel, Israel vs. Rome." Rome he sees as the epitome of strength and the ideal he holds to be noble, Israel as the system which created the weak values system. He is angry because this weak system was able to topple mighty Rome.
I had to read Nietzsche in short sections at a time because it overwhelmed me. It was hard for me to see how someone can be so enraged by the system of values to write a book such as this. As a Christian, I cherish the values of the Bible and hold to a belief in a better life beyond this world. I appreciate Christianity for giving hope to hopeless world. However, Nietzsche sees Christianity as the ultimate form of slavery and the belief in a loving God as an infection upon the human mind. It is impossible for these two ideals to see eye to eye without one side trying to strangle the other. I also see Nietzsche's vendetta against the Jews, his love for strength, and his justification of the strong preying upon the weak as the cornerstone principles needed in for the creation and development of Nazi Germany.
However, I am looking back on his writing from perspective which has seen what he ideals carried out have produced. I doubt that Nietzsche intended to create monsters like Hitler and the terrible power of Nazi Germany. It seems to me that Nietzsche is merely looking at his world from a rational, atheistic viewpoint and is not happy with how things are going. Therefore, he does what all humans do when they have a problem he complains about and uses his writing as a venue to channel out his aggression. I wonder what Nietzsche would say if he knew the consequences of his tantrums and ranting.
Though I do not agree with Nietzsche's offhand remarks against God and believers in God, I did find humor in his dialogue with Mr. Foolhardy into the shop where ideals are contrived. He uses this little anecdote to target mainstream Christian beliefs in a satirical sort of way. He even mentions the unpleasant smell of this shop in a humorous offhand way. I enjoyed that excerpt, though I did not agree with it at all.
Overall Nietzsche's writing is a revolt against the Christian dogma which has captivated the world for so long. He views the system as a manufacturer of weakness and itself a type of parasite to attach to any unwary victim. In this sense I cannot help but understand where Nietzsche is coming from. His perspective of Christianity is the result of centuries of political strife caused by unconverted Christians making hypocritical and atrocious statements in the name of Christ. This has not given the church a good reputation in the eyes of many and may be the single greatest caused for atheism. It is not rational for people to be humble and to learn to love your enemy. Human nature tells us to seek revenge and retaliation but Christ tells us to forgive. This does not make sense to someone who does not have a relationship with God and is extremely preposterous to a person looking at it from outside the Christian circle. Nietzsche is a prime example of the results of the affects of "manufacturing" morals without winning people over. Christians can avoid creating enemies such as Nietzsche if we stop trying to ram our values down other peoples' throats, take away the political influence of the church, and let Christianity be its own witness.

The translator of this volume does not seem to grasp what Nietzsche is trying to do. He omits passages that are important for understanding of the text simply because the importance of them is not always clear at first. He also omits the references that Nietzsche makes to his own earlier works. This makes the text flow more smoothly, but doesn't allow the reader the opportunity get a handle on what Nietzsche is up to, and doesn't give the reader a sense of what other works by this author might be of interest. Again, this is a good work, but there are better translations available!

Ill give it 2 stars instead of 1. because it is not nietzsche i have the prolem with.

I knew i was taking a chance by buying this, I like Hollingdale, and like kaufman, but this translater, takes the fun out of freddie. It hardly even sounds like nietzsche speaking. For one example a famous line is "we all speak vaugly about poerty because we are all bad poets.".. When i read that line i barely realized i read it as he write "we all speak abrtractly about our poetry because we tend to be indifferent poets." The whole book reads like that. Nietzsche Bold statements! poetic prose are replaced with boring textbook like translation. I realized we might have a problem when i read the "ABOUT THE AUTHOR" in the book and he had traslated the title of "THE GAY SCIENCE" to "THE JOYFUL KNOWING" uhm.... I'm re-buying the book today the kaufman version. dont buy this.

For the sake of brevity, I will say merely that this translation was entirely successful in its aim to vulgarize Nietzsche's stylistic idiosyncracies for the sake of mass consumption. This is a beautiful book, and deserves a more sympathetic treatment. R.J. Hollingdale's translation is the best, but even Walter Kaufmann's is preferable to this one. It DOES matter!

In this book, Nietzsche is concerned with bringing about the end of those idols that have the "feet of clay." Much has grown hollow in the light of modern discoveries, and the old idols must fall. We are not to worry too much about what shall replace them, because Nietzsche's hammer is impatient to speak. And new values need room before they can flourish, so it is out with traditional (mis)conceptions for Nietzsche.

This book is an interesting insight into Nietzsche's, if not the human, psyche. He reveals the insecurity that must stalk those who fancy to be significant people (are you really the ideal/person you represent to be, or just an actor?) This book is also the origin of the famous "what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" maxim. It's a terse and impressive statement, but it is clearly not always true. You may not come out stronger out an illness or a psychologically traumatic experience. Nietzsche overvalues hardness and overestimates the power of the subconsiouss to motivate our actions. As a short and insightful book, however, this is still a great read.

ALtough this isn't the best or most sophisticated work Nietzsche has to offer, it certainly is worth reading for anyone interested in his life and works. It is some kind of summary of everything he has said in his previous books. Christianity, morals, Kant.. it's all in here. His last attempt to show the world what it's all about, just before he went insane. My favorite part are the first couple of pages where statements can be found like "Is man just a mistake of God, or is God just a mistake of man?". Absolutely recommended for anyone whose interested in philosephy in general and Nietzsche particulary.

Nietzsche is a "Paradigm of Playfulness" in my opinion, and Professor Higgins has done an excellent job of teasing out the entrenched humor of his Gay Science. Also, the importance of humor in philosophizing not only in Nietzsche's work but in general should be taken into consideration by those who kick their heels up on the playground of ideas. In this unprecedented work Higgins shows us the multi-faceted nature of Nietzsche's way of doing philosophy, and with this approach a new appreciation for Nietzsche's depth as a philosopher should be noted.

This book is not funny. Higgins is not funny. Nietzsche's Joyful Wisdom is not funny. This book, as discussed in the preface, was contracted by a silly university press -- one of the silliest of them all. Then Higgins sat down to force the thing into shape. Every page has the feeling of being forced. There is nothing here that is smooth, natural or even very insightful. Higgins is constantly saying 'I think that is funny' as though her opinion could be worth anything at all. She has to think that in order to fulfill her contract. And who cares about her mental state anyway? The only proof that something is funny is that people find it funny, perhaps. But Higgins is an interested party, so her opinion is irrelevant. In fact, her opinion is worthless here, and so is her book.

Well, after waiting well over two months for the book on pre-order I finally received it. Seeing that the book has the exact same title as another book but had no review or book info, I was under the assumption that since it was in my recommended section it must have something to do with the other book of the same title. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when I opened it to find that it was a play as apposed to an informative book. I guess lesson learned.

I saw this show in England and was amazed at its creativity. A must read for fans of more avant garde theater.