This is Scruton at his best in non academic writing. If you ever wondered what fox hunting had to do with Aristotle, Plato, Kant (and possibly even Heiddiger, the man not the tunelling boring machine) this is the place to look. It is also a good present for parents of philosophy students who wonder if their offspring are doing a safe or sensible subject. They'll have no worries after reading this. I recommend it very highly, except for sad socialists.

Reading the newly pre-eminent translation of "The Genealogy of Morality" by Maudemarie Clark (a standard-bearer in Nietzsche scholarship) and Alan Swensen, a book regarded by Nietzsche himself as "a touchstone for what belongs to me," one may well wonder if, since its publication in 1887, much has been established in the genres of moral philosophy or moral psychology that is not merely an unwitting (or unacknowledged) footnote to the scintillating propositions, probabilities, and speculations this book.

For further corroborative and complementary work -- by a contemporary academic gifted with a matchless synthesis of eloquence, erudition, and psychological acuity -- see William Ian Miller's "Humiliation," "The Anatomy of Disgust," and his forthcoming "The Mystery of Courage."

another book of essays from a relatively unknown thinker, offering fearless perspectives on politics, poetry and culture.
Weinberger is one of the few living writers I turn to when I want to learn about certain aspects of the contemporary world.

On The Geneology of Morals -- This work is clearest when read as a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil. I don't suggest starting here. The prose is more straightforward than BG&E, he is attemting polemic in essay form. Yet still, it is still a voice in your head, consipring with you, coaxing you toward understanding. Here, the prose style of BG&E becomes apparent.

Ecce Homo -- This would seem like a very pretentious work. It is not. He comes off almost modestly here. This too, clears the air of all that is rotten about what has been said about him. It is as if he had guessed what evil things would be said about him.

Especially if this is your first Nietzsche book, I suggest, instead of buying this, buying the Basic Writings of Nietzsche which contains these two books, as well as three others (Beyond Good & Evil, which is a better place to start anyway; The Birth of Tragedy, and The Case of Wagner), by the same translator, and which costs only a few dollars more now that it's out in paperback.

Undoubtedly Nietzsche's most penetrating and philosophical work, the "Genealogy of Morals" is a shattering indictment of science, Judaeo-Christian morality and modern Western values such as liberalism, socialism and feminism. It identifies these phenomena with the reactive, self-preservative "ascetic ideal" - the oppressive "will to truth" - that aims to constrain and deny life. In opposition, Nietzsche propounds art and culture as a counteragent and champions the "Diyonisan tragic artist" who will affirm and celebrate life. - Also a pioneering text for deconstruction and poststructuralism in its analysis of historicism and interpretation.

Undoubtedly Nietzsche's most penetrating and philosophical work, the "Genealogy of Morals" is a shattering indictment of science, Judaeo-Christian morality and modern Western values such as liberalism, socialism and feminism. It identifies these phenomena with the reactive, self-preserving "ascetic ideal" - the oppressive "will to truth" - that aims to constrain and deny life. In opposition, Nietzsche propounds art and culture as a counteragent and champions the "Diyonisan tragic artist" who will affirm and celebrate life. - Also a pioneering text for poststructuralist critical-historical analysis, as represented by the likes of Deleuze and Foucault, and deconstruction, the maverick textual methodology of Jacques Derrida.

I never thought that I would find myself reading a book that was in favor of bureaucracy. Being a skeptic, I thought that every second spent reading this book would be a waste of time. However, I was surprised at how Charles T. Goodsell makes you want to jump on the bureaucracy bandwagon. Charles Goodsell has done a fair job on his book "A Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic." Goodsell looks at several of the preconceived notions that are held by the general population about the size, structure, hierarchy, and organization of the bureaucracy regardless whether it is in federal, state, or local governments. Goodsell begins each chapter with a great deal of enthusiasm but runs out of steam when it comes to making a solid argument for bureaucracy in some of the areas discussed. The author obviously has an affinity for statistics, which he uses throughout ninety percent of his book. Goodsell tries to rely on data that was collected some twenty to thirty years ago. The public sector has undergone numerous changes since some of these surveys were conducted. Some of the studies that he uses such as comparisons between Detroit and Delhi, I found somewhat irrelevant. Charles T. Goodsell makes a strong case for the bureaucracy in the United States. His unique approach will convince many that the bureaucracy is open, flexible, and even willing to change. However, I feel that because of his outdated and irrelevant surveys and studies, which he uses throughout his book, which these detract from rather than make the case in favor of bureaucracy. The book is a noble attempt to win citizens over to the idea that the bureaucracy is a polite, customer service oriented, friendly, and helpful group of 20 million individuals that are there to serve them. I am not sure that even the most well written defense of the bureaucracy will alleviate the notions that are held by most citizens.

So far, much has been written about the evils of bureaucracy, but less has been written about the accomplishments of bureaucracy. Generally, the message given by popular literature regarding government bureaucracy was one-sided and too far from completeness. In this book, the author tries to draw a complete picture of government bureaucracy. In contrast to popular bureaucracy-bashing writing, Goodsell reaches surprisingly interesting conclusions that contradict long-held beliefs toward public bureaucracy.

The overall characterization of government bureaucracy within popular culture reflects that government bureaucracy is overstaffed, inflexible, unresponsive and power hungry. In forming such an image, media and academia have played a crucial role, according to the author. The economists are hostile to government bureaucracy on the basis that competitive markets and profit incentives are feasible means to obtain efficiency; sociologists are concerned with pathologies of bureaucracy; and so on. However, generally, criticism of bureaucracy is not well supported by empirical data. As being different from those who attack bureaucracy based on unfounded assumptions most of the time, Goodsell supports his arguments with empirical data that have been obtained from citizen surveys. In my opinion, the reason for the case is very well presented and worthy of careful reading.

One of the arguments of the author is that critiques of government bureaucracy fall prey to the mistake of seeing bureaucracy as a whole (a form of abstraction), and ignoring the differences between different public agencies. Goodsell aptly illustrates how public agencies greatly differ from each other in terms of performance, conduct and so on. Also, citizen surveys support the fact that ordinary citizens are glad from their relationships with government bureaucracy in their local neighborhoods. However, as a general concept, bureaucracy is an oxymoron (this paradox, in literature, is called "the paradox of distance", that is, ordinary citizens are happy with their business with bureaucracy and bureaucrats, but they have negative attitudes toward 'bureaucracy'-the more distant the bureaucracy the more the negative attitude is).

Not only Goodsell examines accomplishments of government bureaucracy, but also he convincingly demonstrates the facts that impede the expected success of the government bureaucracy, including vague goals given to bureaucracy, the problems of coordination created by excessive outsourcing (administration by proxy), the complexity of social problems that government bureaucracy deals with, efficiency and equity conflict, and the like. In handling the subject, this book is very comprehensive, and the author files an excellent and convincing case. Not easy to summarize all the points, however all popular myths regarding government bureaucracy I (probably you) have heard are answered in the book with tremendous clearness.

Overall, I highly recommend this classic to anybody who is interested in government bureaucracy. I also recommend "The Spirit of Public Administration" by George Frederickson, and "Bureaucracy" by James Wilson. The case for bureaucracy is a case for bureaucracy, and you are the members of the Jury. The final decision is up to you.

I do not rate this book very highly. I think that Dr David Holden totaly wrong about his views and should go back to school

This is a wonderful book. Croally is an erudite and adventurous scholar, and an interesting writer, not all that common for academics these days (e.g. "the slaves betray characteristics of the free which the free themselves do not possess"). This is essential reading for the study of Euripides and the function of tragedy.

For anyone interested in Ancient Greek theatre and the focus on space, this text is an excellent analysis of The Trojan Women as the context for investigating the politics of space as it relates to both the Ancient Greek stage and Greek ideology. And while the text is at times dense and "heavily academic," I found the analysis of space extremely insightful and enlightening and used the ideas freely in my work on a production of The Trojan Women. Highly recommended.

The book offers good material to broaden your view on emperor Julian. Even though the original fragments are translated and edited with great care, I would have wanted to see the original latin and greek texts also included in the book. It is hard to get your hands on these texts without this publication.

This is a book with an excellent analysis of the reasons behind Goethe's attempt to discredit Newton's Opticks, specifically his work on the generation of colour in the spectrum obtained by the refraction of a "ray" of light (through a prism) emitted through a small pinhole. It must be remembered that Dennis Sepper is a philosopher rather than a physicist which means that the actual analysis of Goethe's work on 'Colour Theory' is not so deeply studied, although he does say just enough to give the impression all is not well with the standard Newtonian view and that Goethe's observations, especially the fact that the spectrum obtained by the above technqiue is a product of two spectra obtained at the edges between a dark and lighter surface e.g. a card with half black and half white colouring, remain valid today. The spectrum then only ever appears at the boundary between the two and only certain colours of the spectrum, reversing the position of black and white shows some more spectral colurs and the meeting of the two produces the green seen in standard spectra.

Sepper separates the book into sections with the first an introduction explicating both Goethe's and Newton's ideas followed by the second section on Goethe's first work on colour: "The Beitraege" and its differences to the later "Farbenlehre" and the reason for these differences. The third section discusses the inherent problems within Newton's views and his experimentun crucis. The remaining chapters discuss how Goethe was right and where he was wrong as well as his very sophisticated ideas on the philosophy of science which makes him one of the earliest student's of the discipline; something which was not fully investigated until the 20th Century.

Its a superbly argued book and Sepper never at any point verges too much in either direction. Both weaknesses and strengths are highlighted, in both instances, whether Goethe or Newton. Sepper makes the point that there is still much to colour science, even as it stands today, that needs to be more fully explored. Even with the tremendously successful wave theory which explains most of the phenomena of light and colour. I say most given that quantum theory was needed for some cases and who knows what still remains to be discovered. maybe even some of the observations of Goethe may still need to be explained.

I would say that of all the books written on the subject of the so-called non-scientific science of Goethe, this is by far the best. Having read both critiques of Goethe by scientists and other books by proponents of Goethe this one is very clear and gets to the bottom of often vague statements made by others. Only Bortoft's book on "The Wholeness of Nature" does the same kind of justice.

Pushkin Threefold is so named because each of the poems featured is presented three times: in metric translation, literal translation, and in Russian. It's a wonderful work because, barring actual fluency in Russian, comparing multiple translations is the closest English-speakers can get to the meaning of the original poems. It loses a star only because some of the poems have been better translated elsewhere. However, it maintains four stars because I've never found any single book which contained _all_ the best translations.

Smiga makes his case after careful preparation and a thorough establishment of fact. His analysis, however, is tentative and almost reluctant. As a result, the conclusion of this text is anti-climactic and without real appeal.