This book is amazing, it has changed my life in many ways, people now want me Mr Ian Fry to start my own religion, and they want me to read from this bible for the sermons. Buy this book and become a slave to the cheese!! Go on spoil yourself!! i did!!

If you love cheese, this book is for you. As more and more restaurants offer quality cheese courses, it is worthwhile to have this book around so you know what is and is not worth trying. Even seasoned tasters will enjoy the tone of the text and the content. The recipes are simple and clear, with a structure that should appeal to even amateur home chefs.

I think that just about anything is better with cheese, so this book is right up my alley. Even if you aren't a cheese addict, you will find this book to be an interesting and useful resource. The book is divided into two basic parts: an encyclopedia of cheese types and recipes with cheese as a principal ingredient. The encyclopedia is amazingly thorough - both in the varieties of cheese discussed and in their analysis of the history and processes behind them. I particularly liked that the authors organized their presentation of cheeses into categories and subcategories of similar cheeses. Very useful. Also, it was nice that they included some of the more pedestrian cheese varities. Too often books like this focus exclusively on varities that are rare and exotic - these specialties are fun for special occassions and to read about, but they are frequently hard to find and not always practical for everyday cooking. Even though the recipes are not particularly flashy, they are well-designed to showcase special characteristics of the applicable cheeses. A lot of effort clearly went into this book, and it pays off. Oh, and lots of nice color pictures to browse through.

Cambridge obviously chose the right man for the job (and they've done so more often than not in their wonderful new series of philosophy biographies). Pinkard's biography is a masterpiece. Almost every corner of Hegel's life is dealt with in an interesting way, but I would single out two aspects of this book as being the finest: 1. His strictly philosophical discussion of the period between Kant and Hegel is wonderful. Numerous book-length studies of this period are available, but Pinkard covers the same ground more concisely and far more lucidly. 2. Some reviewers compliment Pinkard's treatment of the early Hegel, which is certainly quite fine. However, there has already been scholarly discussion of the Tuebingen period; ironically, it is always the concluding _Berlin_ period that has received too little attention in biographical sketches of this philosopher. Sure, by then he was world famous and collecting honors and prizes, but I had never received any taste of his Berlin life at all from any biographical summary: nothing but lists of his lecture courses and throwaway accounts of his death. Pinkard takes care of this problem, bringing the late Hegel to life. My only regret is that we can't hire Pinkard to write biographies on another 15 or 20 major figures.

Hey, Cambridge-- when are you going to do Leibniz?

It would be difficult to justify a biography of a philosophy as being essential: if you want to understand a philosopher you should read their works instead. But Pinkard manages to wage an astonishingly battle on two fronts: first, elaborating on his philosophical development with a view towards prominent influences and second, foisting off common misconceptions about Hegel.

So, for part one. Hegel is difficult. It was, as I learned, his distinguishing mark in early years: "more obscure than Fichte!" was something like a slogan. Pinkard does a marvellous job of showing the diversity and complexity of Hegel's experience (the chapters on his university friendship with Schelling and Hoderlin are especially absorbing) and pulling out some of the more unexpected sources of his thought. (Adam Smith and Gibbon and the New Testament, for example.) Ever since Dilthey more attention has been payed to Hegel's early work and for good reason. Moving from this account Pinkard gives excellent insights into the genesis and exposition of Hegel's notoriously difficult "system." Having been absoloutely dumbfounded by Hegel in the past I think this book is the best possible introduction to what Hegel is up to in his Philosophical work. Pinkard in addition to being keen has some serious philosophical chops so he brings out some aspects of Hegel that get overlooked.

As for the second front Pinkard does a great job of countering some of the more cartoonish and absurd pictures of Hegel: the pioneer of German nationalism, the doddering obscurantist, the proto-fascist conservative. Pinkard does a good job showing how the most common images of hegel are thorough characters whose longevity has more to do with the fact that few people actually read or know much about Hegel. I particularly liked the way Hegel's complex political commitments were mapped out and how the more intimate aspects of Hegel the person (his addiction to whist, his love of coffee) were brought out.

I am given to understand that Hegel scholarship is experiencing something of a revival these days, and by my account Pinkard's biography should be at the forefront of any movement. He deserves a great deal of credit for producing a skillfull, well-written and insightful work on an extremely difficult thinker.

Hegel's philosophical perspective digs deeply into the rhythms of the real, expressing an omnivorous quality that is remarkable for both its sheer beauty and its conceptual power. Whether or not he solved the knotty issues bequeathed to him by Kant concerning the structure and limits of consciousness (I go back and forth on this issue), he certainly probed into the ways in which self-consciousness shapes itself as entwined with history and the self-alienated realms of nature. For me, he is the model of what philosophical query should be. Such ramified query must be couragous, unrelenting, bound by what gives itself over to self-consciousness to live-through, and sensitive to the generic powers of language. In Terry Pinkard's biography we find such a Hegel. He is presented within the context of an unrelenting series of negations that push against his inner philosophical drive. We learn a great deal about how he sharpened his political awareness, both in terms of the French Revolution and its aftermath, and in terms of the always shifting realm of academic politics (as embedded in German State politics). What I especially appreciate is Pinkard's presentation of how Hegel came to know of his Stuttgart provincialism and how he overcame much of it--in particular, his Lutheran distaste for Catholicism. Pinkard pushes us past the normal left-wing vs. right-wing readings of the late Hegel by showing that both aspects were fully operative, perhaps for different reasons, and that his views on Christianity were not career enhancing expressions of Prussian sanctioned Lutheran conservativism. For example, Hegel rejected any hint of biblical literalism, an immortal personal soul, a literal reading of creation, and the notion of a personal god "begetting a son"(p. 589). It is clear from Pinkard's reading that Hegel had a strong, if feared and abjected by him, impulse toward creating a world religion (much like his despised colleague Schleiermacher). In short, Hegel's pro-Napoleonic and emancipatory tendencies remained strong until the end. A psychoanalyst would ask: what drove Hegel toward his pan-logicism? My sense is that he deeply feared madness (consider the dementias of Holderlin and Hegel's sister) and that he sensed the possibility of disintegration within himself (as argued by Alan Olson in his "Hegel and the Spirit," Princeton 1992). His materialized and thickened Wissenschaft of logic provided him with a bulwark against the unconscious (as it was presented by his friend/enemy Schelling in 1808 with his concept of das Regellose--the unruly ground). He likewise rejected Egyptian art because it merely evoked the "measureless," unlike the art of the classical Greeks that found measure (and hence, safety). Yet his desire to devour the world, perhaps motivated by his flight from the unruly unconscious, was the root source for his unsurpassed series of philosophical productions. Pinkard has a muted sense of this divide in Hegel and shows it operating, I think, in Hegel's ambivalence about the Romantic flights of some of his friends. Pinkard has done something quite impressive with this work and many of us now have a much more compelling picture of the fragmented wholeness of Hegel. We see a man on the margins who produced great works which were initially surrounded by silence. We see a justly ambitiuous thinker who had to push against the wall of mediocrity around him to gain contact with the powers who could free him from lowly high school teaching and newspaper work so that he could enter the world of the university. And we see a man who, unlike Kant, reveled in the delights of physical embodiment and the material conditions of the world. Above all, Hegel's work shines through as his profound whole-making answer to his and the world's fragmentary features. Unlike most, his flight from the unruly ground bore positive fruits, even if he left much of the unconscious of nature and the self to be explored by others.

Having grown up in Germany during the Third Reich - I was nine when World War II ended- I have read obsessively about this subject. The question, " How did it happen"? has perhaps no answer. But this book offers a salutary counterbalance to Goldhagen's one-sided "Hitler's Willing Executioners." How many of us would follow our conscience into such a prison as Franzl, the Jehova's Witness and Conscientious Objector, Fritz Römer, the Socialist, or Erich Friedrich, the author, endured for their convictions? Friedrich was arrested for not giving the Nazi salute, and for making disparaging remarks about Hermann Goering. The government acted legally, because what these prisoners did was against German law at that time. This book shows the American reader, who has no personal experience of a totalitarian regime, what it means to resist such a government.

Once I picked up this book, I couldn't put it down. I was shocked by the plight of Erich Friedrich and his cell mates. A fascinating and intriguing real life story and account of the "Other" side of Germany that we so rarely hear about. I strongly recommend this book. For other readers please let me know of any other books similar to this one.

Thanks

What a fascinating and spellbinding story about seven men thrown into a prison cell by the Nazis for alleged crimes against the Third Reich. Most were executed, but one, the author survived to tell his story. A touching story that's hard to put down once you start reading it. I highly recommend this book.

In a well thought out work of considerable length (nearly 600 pages) Von Mises effectively demolishes the various arguments that have been made by the advocates of socialism. He approaches the problem of socialism from a number of different perspectives and provides very persuasive arguments concerning why socialism and its derivatives can only result in chaos. The underlying premise of Von Mises' work is that economic calculation is impossible under socialism, and the arguments that he advances on behalf of this proposition are in my view irrefutable. Overall, this is an excellent work by a very lucid, thorough, and perceptive thinker. My one complaint with the work - which was not enough to reduce it to below 5 stars - is that I found the manner of exposition sometimes more difficult than need be the case. Since this was not true with regard to "Liberalism" which was also authored by Von Mises, I can only conclude that this one deficiency may be attributable to the translation. However, if you are interested in reading Von Mises, I recommend that you read "Liberalism" (which is much shorter, easier to read, and a good introduction to Von Mises' thought), before reading "Socialism."

1) This book will allow you to successfully debate Socialism vs. Capitalism with your left leaning friends. Raw power - buy it.

2) The info in the book is worth far more than the purchase price.

I want to thank all of the collectivists, central planners and socialists of both Left and Right affiliations for their low rankings and bad reviews of this book. If my entire worldview was shattered by a single book, I supposed I would be angry and irrational as well.

Anyway, this is a great book to learn not only why central planning and regulation of markets fail, but the mentality behind those type of people. This book exposes the myth that National Socialism and Soviet Communism were somehow radically different, and not in reality just different sides of the same coin. I have had many arguments with Lefists on how different socialism is from National Socialism, but with this book I can show them the error of their ways.

To sum up: If you are a market liberal, a fiscal conservative or libertarian, read this book and buy it for any central planning, anti-market advocates you know. If you are a collectivist or anti-market conserviative or liberal, please read this book and try to convince your fellows of the danger of their actions.

I always have to psych myself up to read a book like this that combines philosophy, economics, political theory and economics but once I read it I was sorry I waited so long. More than once I found myself going back to the copyright page to assure myself that the book was written in 1960, not 2000.

Within the first few pages he disassociates himself from a pure libertarian position, saying he believes that the govenment has an important place in extending freedom. In an afterword he explains "Why I am not a conservative." For people that like to go beyond categorizing everything into left/right left/right like drill sargents Hayek throws a curve. He strongly believes that the feedback from free markets is the only way that society can adapt to change, which would be something labeled "conservative," but he goes into detail about the ways that governments can help make that happen.

I am not surprised that people like Noam Chomsky never seem to mention Hayek. Chomsky carefully selects the facts that help make his case and ignore the ones that are counter to it. Hayek's argments against socialism, or command economies are so good that they pretty much lay the matter to rest. I recently read a speech by Chomsky where he says that because of the unequal distribution of wealth that our "free" markets are just socialism for the rich. Hayek addresses that directly by pointing out that luxuries are luxuries because few of them are produces and only the rich can afford them, but if they are useful or liked people figure out ways to make them less expensively and they become available to everyone. That's just the way it is. How could it be possible that someone could anticipate the breakthroughs humans continue to make?

That is one little nugget from this book. I read once that Maggie Thatcher used to give away copies of this book saying "this is what we believe." For that reason alone it would be worth reading because of the influence her reforms had on not only England, but the thinging of the whole developed world.

Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty" is a comprehensive work of political philosophy. It sets forth, defends, and applies an important view of the nature of human liberty, government, and economics that is worth considering, at the least, and that has much to commend it. The book is carefully written and argued with extensive and substantive footnotes and with an "analytical table of contents" that is useful in following the details of the argument. The book is highly erudite. It is also passionately argued. Hayek believed he had an important message to convey.

Hayek's states his theory in part I of this book, titled "The Value of Freedom". He seeks to explore the nature of the ideal of freedom (liberty) and to explain why this ideal is valuable and worth pursuing. He finds the nature of freedom in the absence of coercion on a person by another person or group. He argues that in giving the broadest scope of action to each individual, society will benefit in ways that cannot be forseen in advance or planned and each person will be allowed to develop his or her capacities. Hayek summarizes his views near the end of his book (p. 394):

" [T]he ultimate aim of freedom is the enlargement of those capacities in which man surpasses his ancestors and to which each generation must endeavor to add its share -- its share in the growth of knowledge and the gradual advance of moral and aesthetic beliefs, where no superior must be allowed to enforce one set of views of what is right or good and where only further experience can decide what should prevail."

The book focuses on issues of economic freedom and on the value of the competitive market. Hayek has been influenced by writers such as David Hume, Edmund Burke, and John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty."

Part II of the book discusses the role of the State in preserving liberty. It develops a view of law which sees its value in promoting the exercise of individual liberty. The approach is historic. Hayek discusses with great sympathy the development of the common law and of American constitutionalism -- particularly as exemplified by James Madison.

In Part III of the book, Hayek applies his ideas about the proper role of government in allowing the exercise of individual liberty to various components of the modern welfare state. Each of the chapters is short and suggestive, rather than comprehensive. Hayek relies on technical economic analysis, and on his understanding of economic theory, as well as on his philosophical commitments, in his discussion. What is striking about Hayek's approach is his openness (sometimes to the point of possible inconsistency with his philosophical arguments). He tries in several of his chapters to show how various aspects of the modern welfare state present threats to liberty in the manner in which he has defined liberty. But he is much more favorably inclined to some aspects of these programs than are some people, and on occasion he waffles. This is the sign of a thoughtful mind, principled but undoctrinaire.

I think there is much to be learned from Hayek. He probably deserves more of a hearing than he gets. For a nonspecialist returning to a book such as this after a long time off, it is good to think of other positions which differ from Hayek's in order to consider what he has to say and to place it in context. For example, in an essay called "Liberty and Liberalism" in his "Taking Rights Seriously" (1977) the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin discusses Mill's "On Liberty" with a reference to Hayek. Dworkin argues that for Mill, liberty meant not the absence of coercion but rather personal independence. Mill was distinguishing between personal rights and economic rights, according to Dworkin. Thus Dworkin would claim that Hayek overemphasizes the value of competitiveness and lack of state economic regulation in the development of Hayek's concept of liberty.

The British political thinker Isaiah Berlin seems to suggest to me, as I read Hayek's argument, that there are other human goods in addition to liberty, as Hayek defines liberty. Further, Hayek does not establish that liberty, as he understands it, is always the ultimate human good to which others must give place. It may often be that good, but there may also be circumstances in which other goods should be given a more preeminent role when human well-being is at issue. In thinking about Hayek, it would also be useful to understand and to assess his concept of liberty by comparing and contrasting his approach to that of John Rawls in his "A Theory of Justice."

Hayek's book is important, thought-provoking and valuable. Probably no writer of a book of political philosophy can be asked for more. It deserves to be read and pondered. It has much to teach, both where it may persuade the reader and where it encourages the reader to explore competing ideas.

It's been a couple of years since I read this book, but I still carry some of Hayek's insights with me.
Probably the most important insight in my own personal life runs to the effect that the gap between the wisest among us and the most foolish among us is not as great as the most sophomoric among us think. It is, unfortunately, the last who suffer the cravings of power the most and wish to run our lives for us. This is my paraphrase, Hayek was much more polite.
He also said that English Common Law was a vastly superior system to any system designed by any single legislator or group of legislators because the incentives for individual judges are more directed toward proving their wisdom in the case at hand, in relation to similar decisions rendered by their colleagues present and past--their peer group--whereas the audience which legislators desire to impress are not their own peers and are not truly paying attention to the nature of their legislation and its consequences beyond the immediate moment whether the legislator is trying to impress a king, an oligarchy or the mass of the people. The Common Law had, and still has, a tendency to enshrine the customs of the people, yet evolved customs have shown a tendency to continue to adjust to the will of the people and, thereby, move the opinions of judges along with the changes required by the age in which they are rendered.
Public opinion may desire these changes to be made more quickly, but my study of history shows that society only needs to do two things quickly: (#1) catch and (#2) punish those citizens and non-citizens who attempt to improve their lives at the expense of others.

"The Marx-Engels Reader" is the best single collection of Marx's thought. What makes it doubly important, is that it is one of the few texts which contain an index. This sounds unremarkable, but believe me, it makes the text extremely more useful. This book transcends the state of being a mere anthology, and is an indespensible reference work.

Make sure you get the second edition.

Marx and Engels wrote an absolutely tremendous amount of the most diverse topics of society possible. This reader does a good job of putting together some representative readings, starting from their most famous "The Communist Manifesto", going into his analysis of revolutions and conditions in many different countries, including France, India, Russia, etc., finally reaching into topics such as family and morality (mainly addressed by Engels).

Though not a Marxist myself, I found this compilation a very comprehensive view of their thinking. It should be sufficient to anyone not seeking to write a dissertation on their thinking.

Marx and Engels wrote so much that getting a handle on their ideas can be difficult. Of course, "The Communist Manifesto" is unbeatable as an introductory text. Indeed, it was their classic work. Not to worry, it's in the reader. So start with that, and if you feel the need to delve deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism (as Marx and Engels actually formulated it), you will have everything you need in this one book. Compact, representative, and with a good translation - it is the perfect book for those of us who would chose to understand these thinkers, without spending a lifetime in the library.

To truly understand a philosopher/philosophy, one must understand the context within which that philosopher developed.
Rudiger Safranski does an excellent job of both describing Nietzsche's environments as well as distilling the esentials of his philosophy. Way too many people have mis-stated the Nietzsche message - this is an excellent source to determine what the 'valuable' message is for you.

Since it is impossible to separate Nietzsche's life from his philosophy, Safranski doesn't even try.
This is the best book on Nietzsche and his philosophy I've ever read.
Why? Because instead of trying to explain N's complicated philosophical ideas all by themselves (which invariably leads to many footnotes about N's life to try and clarify them), Safranski explains the evolution of N's philosophy along with his life. You cannot help but understand it in this way.

'What meaning would our whole being have if it were not that in us that will to truth has become conscious of itself _as a problem_ within us?' --*On the Genealogy of Morals*

Nietzsche lived the life of an ascetic priest who tried to pull Dionysus *inward*, internalizing the Graeco-Gnostic night journey of transformative self-enhancement, lifelong psychic combat at the frontiers of metaphor and expression. There is so much rebellious kicking and thrashing in N.'s collected works, a witch's wind of wild conjecture emanating from a chthonic whirlpool, that a long, embattled tradition of miscomprehension, accusation, and resentment was bound to ferment in its wake.... In the final year before his breakdown, N.'s landlady heard strange noises coming from his room, and sneaked upstairs to peek through the keyhole. The sight of N. dancing naked like the Hindu god Shiva, teetering on a ground-swell of hysteria, is a popular image (second only to that of a stonefaced, embittered loner pouring scorn on 'the herd' from the separatist darkness of his cold rented room) that Rudiger Safranski aims to dignify, flesh out, qualify, and redact. In this regard, *Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography* is a boon and a delight, a sure-handed trump to all who doubt the centrality of N.'s thought (most American philosophy departments, monopolized by logicians of the 'analytical' school, do not offer a course on Nietzsche).

Safranski's biography hits hermeneutic pay-dirt, delivers all the important playlets and dramas of N.'s strange and embittered life, the byzantine reversals, the ascetic hardships, the wild years of thought-experiment and self-overcoming as this great thinker pioneered the course of non-analytic philosophy in the 20th century. N.'s passion for conjecture inspired him to structure his life so as to yield Dramatis Personae for thought, a vast cosmological theater of monstrous forces and sibylline potency blazing trails through psychology, aesthetics, philosophy of science, moral theory, and (most disastrously) politics. All philosophical thinking that measures its worth against the great Tolstoyan question 'How should one live?' will ultimately circle back to Nietzsche.

Tactfully, Safranski skimps on the details, focusing on N.'s intellectual development, bringing anecdotal data to bear at strategic moments to help qualify the radical contradictions (and/or developmental reversals) of N.'s ever-flowing deluge of path-breaking insights. When the biographer gets his blood up, his pages glimmer with concise, penetrating analogies, quicksilver correspondences, and (most importantly) stark, evenhanded censure whenever N.'s blazing hubris gets ahead of itself, as in the notorious dogmatic triptych of Ubermensch, Eternal Recurrence, and Will to Power -- a thunderous, fulminating triad of doom-eager pomposity, the fulcrum of N.'s last-ditch hysterics and tragic mental collapse.

What moves this reader most (apart from Safranski's sparkling analytic concordance) is the story of N.'s transformative self-dramatizing putting him further and further outside the loop of human relatedness (even as he penetrated deeper into the chthonic underside of morality, desire, and the historical formation of contingent knowledge-structures). The Nietzsche Syndrome has become an occupational hazard for all lonely, dejected, ego-intensive scholars -- a millstone of toxic self-importance contaminating interpersonal nuance and making the most routine human contact an act of heavy lifting. 'I feel as though I am condemned to silence or tactful hypocrisy in my dealings with everybody.' The chapter focusing on N.'s anguished courtship of Lou Andreas-Salome' is powerfully instructive. Here we see the proud egomaniac so befuddled by his philosophic fantasies (and their ruthless misapplication) that the lonely human being fulminating at their center can no longer break bread with the rest of the species. 'My soul was missing its skin, so to speak, and all natural protections.' N.'s failure to heed Zarathustra's doctrine that disciples should abandon their teachers as soon as they have 'found' their teachings brought N. 'to the brink of insanity'(253) in his yearning for Salome', who, once she understood him, left N.'s side for new intellectual horizons. (In an unsent letter, anguished love-trauma turns to squalid, adolescent rancor: 'This scrawny dirty smelly monkey with her fake breasts -- a disaster!') N. had put so much of himself into speculative thought that the intricate eroto-politicking of courtship and love had become flat-out culture-shock, a strange netherworld of alien ritual and occult formality (exacerbated by a string of spontaneous marriage-proposals to various women during periods of depression and self-doubt).

N.'s corpus of thought became, in many respects, a resentful war-machine geared to take imaginary revenge on the European culture that ignored his writings (while he lived), rebuffed his passion for radical redirection and reform, and refused to validate his Ubermenschian self-image as apocalyptic cultural messiah. We all know the story of N.'s betrayal of his earlier anti-essentialism for 'the will to power,' his grasping for the brass ring of Metaphysics, for the Type A theoretical entity that would circumnavigate and contain the Universe in its pan-relational sightlines. As Safranski notes, Heidegger would condemn the Nietzschean will-to-power as the last metaphysical gasp of a resentful philosophic priest (an allegation that would close the karmic circle via Derrida's critique of Heidegger's *own* late theorizing). N. was a new Prometheus who sought to reclaim the religious creativity of the Graeco-Christian world and restructure the soul of humanity with a renewed spiritual vigor (played against a neo-Darwinist backdrop of cold-water atheism to keep thinking 'grounded' in a steely empirical pragmatism). Safranski's text conflates every major biographical and critical analysis into a compact, razorbacked, 400-page monster head-trip written to challenge, delight, amuse, and inspire all comers. His suspenseful and compelling portrait reminds us all of why we got into philosophy in the first place.

This is a restorative text, a ritual reminder of philosophy's manifold glories and fallibilities, and a meal served in flames.

Friedrich Durrenmatt, The Visit (Grove, 1956)

Another excellent piece of work from Friedrich Durrenmatt, the story of The Visit takes place in a ..town in central Europe somewhere; the country is not given (the reasons should be obvious). As the town is on the verge of bankruptcy, with almost total unemployment and a pervasive sense of despair, one of the town's local folk made good comes back, hinting that she will give the town enough money to bail it out: get the factory working again, allow the stores to restock, that sort of thing. The night she arrives, she tells the townspeople that their expectations of the reasons for her visit are true, and that she will give them the money they need. She has one condition: she requires justice in the form of a lynch mob. She wants the townspeople to [take out] one of their own.

The revelation of the intended victim is the major twist here; in many ways, the play's climax is actually this scene, at the end of Act I, and the following two acts are a painfully drawn-out dénouement as we watch the townspeople's changing reactions to the woman and her demand. Unlike The Pledge, in which we see the gradual development of one man's madness, in this case we're given a woman who's arguably mad from the get-go (certainly, she's as obsessed as The Pledge's protagonist is at the end of that novel from long before the beginning of this play), and we watch the way her madness, combined with her wealth, affects the town around her over the course of a few days. Durrenmatt is a master at using small details to show how the community changes its views over a relatively short period of time, and even manages to make the rather horrific journey humorous at times (the play is defined as, and works as, a tragicomedy). We find ourselves alternately sympathizing with and horrified at the actions of the townspeople, and see no conflict in the two attitudes. A wonderful play.

"The Visit: A Tragi-comedy," by Friedrich Durrenmatt, has been translated from German into English by Patrick Bowles. This three-act play has a copyright date of 1956, and the English translation has a copyright date of 1962.

This is an outrageous tale with a strong satiric flavor. The story takes place in Guellen, a European town that has fallen into economic depression and decay. As the play opens the townspeople are eagerly awaiting the arrival of Claire Zachanassian, a hometown girl who has gone on to become super-wealthy. The townspeople hope that her financial generosity will save Guellen. But from early on in the first act, Claire hints that she has a sinister, even deadly, ultimate goal.

This is a colorful, richly peopled dark comedy. It's full of arresting dialogue, suspense, and grotesque characters. A major theme is the tension between capitalistic greed and the Western humanistic tradition. The play is also about sex, lies, and injustice.

With her artificial body parts, bizarre retinue, and colorful backstory, Claire is one of the most remarkable characters in the history of drama--perhaps the most commanding female stage character since Lady Macbeth. She is charming yet sinister, grotesque yet oddly sympathetic. The creation of this character is, in my opinion, a great triumph for Durrenmatt.

For companion texts, I would recommend the following: "Rene's Flesh," by Virgilio Pinera; "Bedside Manners," by Luisa Valenzuela; and "The Doorman," by Reinaldo Arenas. Each of these works is, in its own way, as bizarre and stimulating as "The Visit."

Hidden under the multitudes of todays so-called prose, this play nevertheless stands out as a blue diamond among bleak stones.

This is Nietzsche's first, and in some ways the best, philosophy book. Prior to Human All-Too Human, he penned The Birth of Tragedy and Untimely Meditations. But it is only in this book that Nietzsche comes into his own as a philosopher. The book was written soon after his retirement from teaching, due to ill health, and Nietzsche suffered a lot from physical pain, while writing the book, having to take hashish to relieve it. The book contains opinions on almost everything under the Sun. Although it is clearly broken down into distinct chapters, the thoughts within chapters are not arranged systematically. This is intentional and represents Nietzsche mistrust of grand theorizing and excessively systematic thinking. He retained this aphoristic writing style till the last days of his productive life. Thus in his approach, Nietzsche anticipates both existentialism and post-modernism. He views life personally, passionately, and with distrust to grand system(narrative) building. Thoughts slither through the labyrinth of human life, revealing strartling insights and forcing us to reconsider received opinions and conventional wisdoms.

By Nietzsche's standards, the perspectives presented in the book are fairly measured, and the author's voice is not nearly as shrill as it would become ten years later, in his last books. Because Nietzsche settles at a high level of generalization, some opinions do sound narrow-minded and prejudiced. In this, Nietzsche was also a victim of his time and culture: his comments on women and "the youthful Jew of the stock exchange" are not intellectuals gems, to put it very mildly. Some of his other opinions, on marriage, for example, also strike me as strange. Overall, this is a book by an all-too-human philosopher, yet it is a path-breaking work, a precursor to existentialism and post-modernism, written in a style that can appeal to the reader sheerly as good literature.

In this book, actually an anthology of three books, Nietzsche anticipates and comments upon social, cultural, political and psychological issues most of which are still current and troubling. A central theme is the human tendency to look for comfort, stability, and easy answers. He seemed to foresee that this tendency would become even more maladaptive as the pace of change increased, than it was in his own time. He offers an analysis of its causes, and a treatment, in the form of a relentless series of verbal shock-treatments, delivered in one-half to one page essays. The reader is constantly stimulated to take another look at issues that he thought he had settled.

Another issue for Nietzsche is the examination of the appropriate roles for science and art in human development. Anticipating contemporary thinking,he proposes that the brain has two competing/complementary functions. One, whose main product is science, brings an immediate sense of power to be able to understand what was not understood before, and what is not understood by many others. As an after-effect, however, it brings a sense of despair and depression, that previously-held illusions have been destroyed. The other half of the brain, the artistic sense, which he also calls the will to falsehood (not in a negative sense)presents possibilities, creative syntheses, or holistic images.

For Nietszche,human evolution proceeds by each individual maximizing the potential of each part of his brain, constantly generating new creative ideas, and then subjecting them to relentless analysis and criticism. This is the method Nietszche himself uses. He warns, however, that it requires incredible energy and strength to constantly be aware of and examine one's basic assumptions. Many who try will fall, (as Nietszche himself did) but, anticipating Darwin, he describes a process whereby the strongest, those most capable of enduring physical and psychological adversity, are the ones who survive and pass on the benefits of their growth.

Read this book if you are feeling depressed, read it if you are feeling strong, read it if you are feeling bored, read it if you are feeling overstressed, read it if you want a really good time, read it one page per day, read it all at once, read it in your own way, but my recommendation is READ IT.

This book is good for all of those who have read other of Nietzsche's works, as well as those who wish to start reading him. Nietzsche's ideas behind the concept of free spirits talk about an intellectual elitism which is only to be understood by those who have lived it. A book trully for free spirits, but recommendable for everyone who wishes to reach such a status, or become knowledgeable on Nietzsches ideology.

Most of the ideas on this book prevail up to his latest works, unlike previous essays which are later diminished by Nietzsche himslef. If you like this book read "The day Nietzsche Wept", if you liked that one, read this one. Let us face the truth: Nietzsche is a great thinker, specially for his time.

This is both a review and a Kritik of the "Montreal Readers" review. I happen to love the writings of Nietzsche, in my opinion he is the most important philosophical figure ever to walk this planet. However, do not listen to the "Montreal Readers" comments, he or she does not even know the title of the orignial piece, in this persons review it states the "La Gaya Scieza" when in actuality the original title in the german is Di Froliche Wissenschaft.
This book is a masterpiece, one of Nietzsche's most beautifully written books in which he paints a picture with witty and glamorous aphorisms. Many themes such as the Eternal Reccurance and the Death of God come into plsy and we get a glimpse of Nietzsche's nihilism. My advice is to read Ecce Homo and twilight of the idols before develving into this book. Nietzsche called it his most personal of books, and from reading it and studying Nietzsche myself I believe it to be as well. But that does not mean one should start with this book. One needs to learn and get personal with Nietzsche and gather an understanding of his concepts and ideas before anyone should dive into this work.
It is a masterpiece, but a work that is substantial and one of his longer works. Take a test drive with Nietzsche and if you want to read more, go and read this work.

The Gay Science is a wonderful celebration of life. One can not make categorial statements on Nietzsche, but that he wanted his readers to accept the indifference of nature, and not pity themselves with, "Why me?" questions. After all God is dead, therefore, why even bother yourself with asking why me? If there is one Carpe Diem philosopher it is Nietzsche! "One must have liberated oneself from many things that oppress, inhibit, hold down, and make heavy precisely us Europeans [modernity in general] today." Nietzsche takes his readers into cataclysmic conversations (aphorisms), trying to undo the manacles of our spirit. Do yourself a favor and pick up this book, instead of remaining curious about the "madman with a frizzy mustache". Keep and open mind, then curse and thank Nietzsche all you want and move on with your own standards of life.

This book contains the famous description of the madman announcing the Death of God. Obviously Nietzsche sees himself as the madman, sacrificing himself to bring humanity the awful news. What's odd is that Nietzsche was certainly not the first person to proclaim God's death; in fact, as he himself notes elsewhere, many educated people had already become either agnostic or atheistic. None of them, however, found this as earthshaking as Nietzsche. The reason, I think, is that he had an essentially religious nature. The word "spiritual" recurs throught the book. In one remarkable passage he even chastises St. Augustine for being insufficiently spiritual.

The Gay Science is a pivitol book for Nietzsche because it is the first in which the tension between the spiritual seeker and the atheist becomes manifest. Gone is the skeptical pose of "Human All Too Human"; instead we have the anguish of a man torn between two conflicting ideals. The tension, while it ravaged Nietzsche, did produce some brilliant ideas and unforgettable prose, even if it did not ultimately lead to a liveable philosophy.