F. A. Lea's THE TRAGIC PHILOSOPHER: FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE is eminently fair and shows a depth of insight into Nietzsche's philosophy not often found even in the best of commentators. In my considered opinion, Lea's work (first published in 1957) rivals Walter Kaufmann's NIETZSCHE: PHILOSOPHER, PSYCHOLOGIST, ANTICHRIST (first published in 1950) as the best commentary on Nietzsche ever written. Lea's work is even better than Rudiger Safranski's NIETZSCHE: A PHILOSOPHICAL BIOGRAPHY (2002), an outstanding volume in its own right. Lea has the highest respect and appreciation for Nietzsche's accomplishments, but he does not shy away from criticizing Nietzsche, who, after finishing the Third Part of THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, began his slow, sad decline into nay-saying and insanity. A tragic philosopher indeed! According to Lea, Nietzsche misunderstood men like Jesus, the apostle Paul, and St. Augustine, and he provides convincing reasons for such an interpretation. In effect, Nietzsche, the man who struggled valiantly to be a Ja-sager (Yea-sayer) and overcome nihilism, at last succumbed to the demon of nihilism and the negative, destructive spirit of nay-saying. Nietzsche, asserts Lea, was much closer to Jesus, Paul, and Augustine than he realized. I recommend this book with the highest recommendation possible. It deserves a wide readership.

This was the first full length book by Bruno Bauer translated into English. Dr. Stepelevich deserves credit for this fact alone. His translation is superb and invokes the feel of Bauer's troubled mind at the time of this writing. It is rarely recognized that young Bruno Bauer was one of Hegel's favorite pupils. Bauer was grooming himself to be the next great German philosopher after Hegel, and except for a twist of fate, he would have accomplished his goal because he was arguably the most intelligent man of his time. He was imitated by both Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche -- that should give the reader a hint of his intelligence.

The drama of Bruno Bauer began when David Strauss (a Schleiermachian) wrote the first de-mythologization of the Gospels in the mid-1830's and invoked Hegel's name. But the work was not a Hegelian work. More, David Strauss caused a scandal because his now-famous book took a non-fundamentalist attitude toward the Bible. The Government demanded that the official Hegel school respond to this scandal. Bruno Bauer was elected to provide the answer. It is true that Hegelians were not fundamentalists, either, but they had very spiritual ideas and their approach to the Bible was very, very different from that of David Strauss. Bauer's response, then, was honest and accurate, but it did not impress the new fundamentalist German regime. Most Hegelians lost their jobs, and Bruno Bauer was one of them.

This book was written in 1841 when Bauer had just been fired from his post for being a Hegelian. The irony is that Bauer remained a Hegelian but wrote this book against Hegelians as a mockery of the German Establishment. Bauer published this book under the pseudonym of a Lutheran Bishop. The book itself is an ironic comedy, a protest, and a howl of pain during the fall of this great intellect. Dr. Stepelevich's translation has opened the floodgates of new research into this gargantuan intellect. (Today, informal translations of Bauer's CHRIST AND THE CAESARS and CHRISTIANITY EXPOSED are being tossed off for the 'It Was Piso' conspiracy theorists.) When the new translations rise to the level of Lawrence Stepelevich, a whole new dimension of the past century of philosophy will be revealed.

As a college professor, and researcher/student of white collar crime, Friedrichs' Trusted Criminals is by far the best text available on the topic. His extensive coverage of the wide array of actions constituting white collar crime provides readers with a better understanding of this sometimes confusing topic. Also, his easy-to-follow writing style and excellent use of examples facilitate comprehension of the material. It is apparent that a great deal of effort went into writing this book.

I refer to this text as "My Bible," and use it as a starting point for any and all research endeavors involving white collar crime. I eagerly anticipate the second edition (sometime soon?).

I've read "Untimely Meditations" in a few different translations, and Arrowsmith's is excellent (I have no German, not yet). But the special reasons to buy Arrowsmith's "Unmodern Observations" are (1)the translator was himself a man of enormous complexity and diverse gifts; and (2)at the end of the 1st Meditation ("David Strauss, Writer and Confessor"), Nietzsche appended a section analyzing the STYLE of Strauss' work, pointing out the mixed metaphors, cliches, bungled rhetorical flourishes, et cetera, with a more or less brutal intensity. Translating this appendix, which amounts to an essay on German literary style, is very daunting for obvious reasons, and most translators simply leave it out. Arrowsmith masterfully renders the whole thing, and when I read it in the library at Brandeis ten years ago I felt I was learning more about how to write than I had from any other book.

Suppose for a moment that we were able to travel back in time to the latter part of 19th century Germany. If we could do this, we would find an up and coming philosopher by the name of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche who has recently befriended an aging composer; Wilhelm Richard Wagner. Thanks to Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, we are able to make this impossible journey and breathe the crisp German air alongside this philosopher & composer.

The correspondence and friendship that developed between these two intellectual and artistic giants is examined in great detail by Fischer-Dieskau. We learn of their mutual love and admiration. We're let in on the jealousy that each of these egoists had for the other. Wagner would have liked to have been remembered as a great philosopher as well as a great composer. Nietzsche, likewise, would have liked to have been known to posterity as a great composer as well as an influential thinker.

Unfortunately, things did not work out that way. Fischer-Dieskau relays for us the letters of rejection that Hans von Bulow sent to the philosopher; the insults that ended Nietzsche's musical ambitions altogether. As a sidenote you can get some of Nietzsche's piano works @ Amazon.com...P>This is an opportunity to explore a friendship that is every bit as fascinating as that between Beethoven & Goethe. All of the intrigue of the famous splitting up & subsequent animosity, the wonderful discussions about Schopenhaur as well as Nietzsche's infatuation with Cosima Wagner - all if it is included in this biographical work. Anyone who has an interest in either of these men will benefit a great deal by reading this book.

This book is extremely clearly written and gives interesting reasoning on the Japaneses success story. To obtain a copy try the university of Bonn, Germany where Prof. Furstenberg is a professor emeritus - they might be helpful in getting the book.

I bought this book at a time when Nietzsche's works interested me much more than anything that real people had to say about Nietzsche. When I was a youth, a commission had been appointed to try to understand a series of riots, and my reading of Nietzsche was more sympathetic to those who had reasons for trying to demoralize the old order, a motive which I always have read into Nietzsche, than any professor would admit. But I was being ignored, along with my efforts to ridicule people who thought they could outsmart Nietzsche by being more moral or better educated in modern intellectual survival mechanisms. I wasn't talented enough, musically, to be a rock 'n' roller, (this was about the time someone at work told me I could play guitar, "But don't sing,") so it seemed natural to me that college professors weren't astute enough to make their criticisms of Nietzsche stick with me, particularly when rocking out seemed much closer to my escape mechanisms than the loss of self which I could experience by actually understanding Nietzsche in a sense that defied any explanation. I probably bought this book in 1995, when it seemed to be the newest work in the field on Nietzsche's relation to the feminine, and my luck in finding an attempt to plumb the deepest portions of that relationship through striking surveys of the psychological field of thought in this area was great. I believe this book is still in print, an accomplishment which has eluded a number of other works on this topic, and it really is time to start taking this one seriously.

My first great discovery in this book was its discussion of the comedians of the ascetic ideal. A lot of what I learned was in the notes at the end of the book, but Kelly Oliver clearly captured Nietzsche's relationship to the ascetic ideal on page 42 with her description, "Like the plundering soldier, he steals its armor and wears it mockingly, making fun of his enemy. By doing so, however, he is always also mocking himself. . . . This laughter is the only thing that sets the faker apart from the real thing." As a philosopher, Nietzsche definitely mocks himself, but picturing him as a plundering soldier, his laughter appears to be the most real thing about him, and any trouble that I have been in is a sure sign that I am too close to the truth on this point.

The other parts of this book which I could comment on might be considered equally troubling, but the index is helpful in tracking down where this book is really great, and my favorite entry, which might be considered a concept which summarizes the kind of confusion that this book is attempting to avoid more often than not, is metaforeplay.

Just like other masters of German philosophy, Hegel is notorious for the inaccessibility. Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, all call for reader to master the history of Western philosophy before deciphering their works. When it comes to Hegel¡¯s ¡®Phenomenology of the Mind¡¯, the author¡¯s demand on reader goes too far. Every chapter in the part of ¡®Consciousness¡¯ is, in fact, the history of philosophy with no referring any specific names. Moreover, ¡®Introduction¡¯ is not at all introducing reader into anything. It¡¯s the recapturing of the whole work. It must be the most difficult part in the book. So it¡¯s incomprehensible until you reads through the final page of the book. Reading Hegel is like swimming through wet sand. Moreover, Hegel published absolutely nothing preceding ¡®Phenomenology of the Mind¡¯. This fact compounded the difficulty immensely. So much so that one is forced to regard that complex work so something that sprung full-grown, like Athena, from the head of Zeus.

But with Lukacs¡¯s help, you can manage to read Hegel with much more ease. I think Hegel¡¯s contemporary readers had no such difficulty in reading his works. Kant¡¯s propositions and the problem of British empiricism and continental rationalism were the common sense to them. But that kind of knowledge should be obtained, to us, with hard work through reading history of philosophy. Moreover, we can¡¯t sense the historical events like French revolution as vividly as Hegel and his contemporaries felt. We can¡¯t share the same horizon with Hegel. To overcome such obstacles, Hegel¡¯s time should be reconstructed. To do so, Lukacs traced back unpublished manuscripts from Hegel¡¯s gymnasium days to just before writing ¡®Phenomenology of the Mind¡¯. And that, he links Hegel¡¯s personal history to his contemporary events, to show why Hegel thought so. Lukacs¡¯s illustration is easy and graphic enough to grasp who Hegel is. It¡¯s the touch of master. As you know Lukacs is a celebrated Hegelian Marxist philosopher. He opened up the track Frankfurt school and other Hegelian Marxists followed. This book is so much aged. Lukacs wrote this book when he escaped from the hand of Nazi to Moscow. But I haven¡¯t heard of any big name with Hegelian trait since World War II. Only Marxist reads Hegel now. And in the field of philosophy, Hegel and Marxism is out of fashion. So you can¡¯t expect any master like Lukacs write a intellectual biography on Hegel. If you try Hegel, this book is ¡®must¡¯.

I only want to say one thing here, and I say it primarily because I already love this work. This is the translation to buy. Everyone seems to adore Kaufmann, but the truth is he's much more obtuse and difficult to read (and I don't believe it's necessary, as some may say). Hollingdale gets it right. I'll defend myself with one example from a class I took, where Kaufmann's translation was the required text. I had read both translations (cover-to-cover), and sold my copy of Kaufmann's translation, keeping only my Hollingdale. So, needless to say, I wasn't about to buy Kaufmann again, and went to class with Hollingdale. Slowly, but surely, as the other students read bits of the translation I had, or heard when I spoke pieces aloud, they overwhelmingly agreed with me: Hollingdale is simply more clear, more beautiful, more powerful (less academic, shall we say, which is pure Nietzsche). Ok, over and out, enjoy.

I had heard so many aphorisms and blurbs about Nietzsche and his philosophy, I felt that I had no choice but to learn more about this interesting philosopher. I purchased this book and Beyond Good and Evil, started the latter, but found it a tad too dry after a week. I had skimmed Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and found it far more flamboyant and stylistic (to my taste), so I devoted my time reading to it.

And what a great book it is! What a departure from what other philosophers speak! Nietzsche teaches us the overman, the next step of our evolution; and to achieve the goal of the overman, we must not sustain or merely improve current state, but conquer it. The material in this book is like nothing I have ever read before. Chapter IV is very satisfying, especially "On the Higher Man".

Some chapters may require you to reread them in order to understand the quintessence of Nietzsche's message, but this is hardly any sacrifice compared to what knowledge you have to gain.

"The most concerned ask today: 'How is man to be preserved?' But Zarathustra is the first and only one to ask: 'How is man to be overcome?'" - On the Higher Man, section 3

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which was distributed among the German army and read by Hitler, has been long misunderstood. Walter Kaufmann, whose translations of Nietzsche's works are the best available, has been somewhat successful in helping us interpret this great book.

Friedrich Nietzsche tried in this book and others to undermine the prevailing ethics, namely those of Christianity. Christianity, Nietzsche (and later, Martin Heidegger) believed, stemmed from the moral teachings of Socrates; even modern science is derived from them.

Nietzsche is the great critic of modern times. He worried that communism would lead to a horrible homogenization of culture and an overextension of the bourgeoisie (which he hated). Throughout Zarathustra, he praises war, the warrior's spirit, cruelty, vanity, etc.- all things denounced by Christianity. This is not so much to bring about "new" values but rather a re-evaluation of all values! Both Nietzsche and Heidegger went back obsessively to the pre-Socratic philosophers, searching for alternatives.

But Nietzsche does not scorn Socrates; on the contrary, he praises him as the "pied piper" full of "prankish wisdom," terms Nietzsche also applies to himself. And Nietzsche really is on the level Socrates: both are great, prankish, wise, critics of their times and both are philosophers. Both help us understand how to live (and, more importantly, how to die), though there are disagreements between the two. But Nietzsche brings up the great questions of our times: are OUR values the best? should we find others? should we begin anew? Read Zarathustra if you care to explore these things.

Also, for those interested, I recommend Werner Dannhauser's "Nietzsche's View of Socrates," the section from Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" called "From Socrates' Apology to Heidegger's Rektoratsrede," Heidegger's "Being and Time," and of course, the rest of Nietzsche's books.

"Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek, is one of the greatest arguments for economic, political, and social freedom written during the 20th Century. Published in 1944 as an assessment of what went so wrong in Western Europe as to allow the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, Hayek also perfectly forecast the disaster and horrors of Communism that would follow for the next several decades.

In this now famous book, Hayek breaks down the different ways in which state planning, as opposed to individual or more localized control, nearly always means the loss of liberty. Ultimately, in an economic system planned from the top down, should the system seek to continue, it will require dreadful, totalitarian measures. One of the saddest facts of these systems though is that in order to be put into place, they require many once-free people to willingly give up their freedoms: "the totalitarians in our midst" Hayek labels them. One passage along this line that holds just as true today as when Hayek wrote it:

"And, undoubtedly, not merely the ideas which in Germany and elsewhere prepared totalitarianism but also many of the principles of totalitarianism itself are what exercises an increasing fascination in many other countries. Although few people, if anybody, in England would probably be ready to swallow totalitarianism whole, there are few single features which have not yet been advised by somebody or other. Indeed, there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler's book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes. This applies particularly to many people who are undoubtedly Hitler's mortal enemies because of one special feature in his system. We should never forget the anti-Semitism of Hitler has driven from his country, or turned into his enemies, many people who in every respect are confirmed totalitarians of the German type."

For anyone who has wondered recently why Pat Buchanan can often be seen receiving large applause at rallies with ultra-Leftist labor union leaders, or how other fringe Right groups often march these days against international free trade along side of socialist/environmentalist groups, F.A. Hayek explained it perfectly nearly 60 years ago. Whether seeking to force a large group of people to pay excessive amounts for goods and services, through trade protectionism supposedly planned to "protect" the jobs of a much smaller group, or through more directly stated taxation and redistribution of wealth programs, these groups are both taking a page from the Russian and German totalitarians of the 20th Century. Often "mortal enemies" of each other, they have found common cause at the modern-day economic forums, and should a free American people ultimately hand them control, as the Germans gave to these groups' National Socialist forebears, then similar results would ultimately not be far behind. (And if you think there weren't numerous leftists in strong roles in Hitler's National Socialist party, you need to read this book that much more.)

"The Road to Serfdom" lays out just what the title implies. F.A. Hayek was a brilliant thinker who was sadly dismissed by many of his day. Hopefully, more leaders of our era will read this book and realize that economic planning, be it through protective tariffs or progressive tax rates, while such an easy sell and so tempting at times, lead only to a loss of freedoms for everyone (as economic freedom is at the base of all the others), including the people they are supposedly intended to help.

I was introduced to Friedrich von Hayek through reading Thomas Sowell. And I decided to read this book because it was a highly recommended read in the Freedom's Nest Website Reading List.

As soon as I started reading this book, I developed a warm feeling toward the author. In his original introduction, Hayek started with: "When a professional student of social affairs writes a political book, his first duty is plainly to say so. This is a political book...." His candor and his confidence were so befitting with his great intellect.

Noting that Hayek was an Austrian, I was impressed by his mastery of the English language and I enjoyed his writing style. With mild language and in simple terms, Hayek made very sweeping predictions and patiently explained his reasoning with convincing arguments based on economic and human behavioral theories.

Hayek's thesis was that central economic planning will inevitably lead to governmental control of every facet of its citizen's life, and hence toward a totalitarian state. Hayek's other insightful observations: Nazism, Fascism and communism all have the same roots. In a totalitarian state, it is always the ruthless and the unsophisticated who ascend to the top. Extensive governmental control harms the society not just in delivering dismal economic results, but, more seriously, it produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.

One must not forget that when Hayek wrote this book, his was very much a voice in the wilderness; he was ridiculed and denounced by his contemporaries. But his ideas stood the test of time! And blessedly, he lived to see that - to see first the building and eventually the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This little book was said to have had definitive influence on such giants as Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and many others. Perhaps the book's influence was best attested to by its being banned in the USSR, China and many other totalitarian countries.

This book belongs on your book shelf.

As I write this review, I'm saddened by the people I suspect should read this book but, for whatever reason, won't. After reading this book, I finally explicitly understand what I found troubling with socialism--it *requires* obedience to ensure adherence to the plan. As I read this book, I couldn't help notice the parallels between this book and "1984." Since that book was written in 1948, I suspect Orwell was directly influenced by this book. Furthermore, I found "The Socialist Roots of Naziism" a unique take on how socialism and naziism are brethren of the same cloth.

The only thing I found annoying were the periodic German and Latin idioms. This is an extremely minor complaint given the era as well as the intended (presumably academic) audience.

A final comment, Forbes' Ronald Bailey is quoted on the front jacket, "Nearly half a century ago, most of the smart people sneered with Friedrich Hayek published "The Road to Serfdom." The world was wrong and Hayek was right" If "most of the smart people sneered" then this book was truly a courageous and visionary work.