As noted by other reviewers, this reading of Hegel is a post-Nietzsche, post-Marx, post-Heidegger one (meaning it incorporates or synthesizes these post-Hegel, though influenced-by-Hegel, strains of thought). It is therefore scorned by some Hegel 'purists' like Mr. Trejo below. However, having read quite a few commentaries on and interpretations of the Phenomenology I can say that this one is the most well-written, in the sense that it illuminates some very difficult Hegelian concepts (like "Spirit" or Geist itself) in a searingly direct manner. I have also never read another writer so convincing in their argument as to Hegel's essential rightness in his description of the Concept which brings closure to the riddle of Western metaphysics.

I would agree with the 'purists' in not taking this book as the 'definitive' interpretation of Hegel - it can't excuse not reading Hegel in the original, or other commentaries - but I would call it essential within the spectrum of Hegelian thought.

Interestingly, this book shows Hegel, though famously critical of Kant, to be essentially the extender of the Kantian philosophy to it's logical conclusion which is the completion of the Concept of Experience, identified as Time itself (ZeitGeist). That is, Human Time, initiated by Human Desire, as the Absolute Subject constructing itself rationally via reflection on it's Object-negating activity or creativity, not in the classical notion of a rational Time as existing somehow outside or independently of a Subject).

Kojeve's reading however, though convincing in it's demonstration of anthropologically necessary Historical development toward Hegelian 'harmony' between Subject and Object, leaves out Hegel's attempt at the absolute identity of the Object itself. This can be read in two ways that Kojeve touches on. First, in the truer-to-Hegel sense that the Object is necessarily different from the Subject to ensure the ability of the Subject to realize itself as Self, as free Subject of Object-negating, creative, activity. Another way to read this is as simply Kojeve's dismissal of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature and it's more cosmic attempt at spiritualizing the notion of matter. Either way, as many Hegel commentator's have noted, one is left, though certainly further enlightened as to the nature of subjectivity, with a sense that there is still something 'out there' and unknown, ala Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. This can be understood as the Heidegger-influenced side of Kojeve's reading.

My own conclusion at the moment is that both Hegel and the existentialist school following him ala Heidegger and Kojeve can be understood as essentially philosophers of subjectivity in the Western tradition who have rationally illuminated, but also exhausted the questioning of the Self about it's nature. As our great contemporary philosopher in the Continental tradtion Jurgen Habermas has noted, it's high time to move beyond the philosophy of monological subjectivity. For fresh thinking in this area and where to pick up the pieces after Hegel, Heidegger, Kojeve, etc. (rather than taking the nihilistic road of 'post-modernism') I highly recommend Habermas's _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. Habermas as successor to this line of thought is convincingly stated in the opening chapter "Modernity's Consciousness of Time and It's Need For Self-Reassurance" and in his call for moving on to a paradigm of "Intersubjectivity" and Reason understood anew as Communicative Action.

As noted by other reviewers, this reading of Hegel is a post-Nietzsche, post-Marx, post-Heidegger one (meaning it incorporates or synthesizes these post-Hegel, though influenced-by-Hegel, strains of thought). It is therefore scorned by some Hegel 'purists' like Mr. Trejo below. However, having read quite a few commentaries on and interpretations of the Phenomenology I can say that this one is the most well-written, in the sense that it illuminates some very difficult Hegelian concepts (like "Spirit" itself) in a searingly direct manner. I have also never read another writer so convincing in their argument as to Hegel's essential rightness in his description of the Concept which brings closure to the riddle of Western metaphysics.

I would agree with the 'purists' in not taking this book as the 'definitive' interpretation of Hegel - it can't excuse not reading Hegel in the original, or other commentaries - but I would call it essential within the spectrum of Hegelian thought.

Interestingly, this book shows Hegel, though famously critical of Kant, to be essentially the extender of the Kantian philosophy to it's logical conclusion which is the completion of the Concept of Experience, identified as Time itself (ZeitGeist). That is, Human Time, initiated by the emergence of specifically Human Desires (i.e.; for recognition), as the Absolute Subject which constructs itself rationally via reflection on it's Object-negating or given-negating activity or creativity, not in the classical notion of a rational Time as existing somehow outside or independently of a Subject).

Kojeve's reading however, though convincing in it's demonstration of anthropologically necessary Historical development toward Hegelian 'harmony' between the Subject and it's Object, leaves out Hegel's attempt at the absolute identity of the Object itself. This can be read in two ways that Kojeve touches on. First, in the truer-to-Hegel sense that the Object is necessarily different from the Subject to ensure the ability of the Subject to realize itself as Self, as free Subject of Object-negating, creative, activity. Another way to read this is as simply Kojeve's dismissal of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature and it's more cosmic attempt at spiritualizing the notion of matter. Either way, as many Hegel commentator's have noted, one is left, though undoubtedly further enlightened regarding the nature of subjectivity, with a sense that there is still something 'out there' and unknown, ala Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. This can be understood as the Heidegger-influenced side of Kojeve's reading.

My own conclusion at the moment is that both Hegel and the existentialist school following him ala Heidegger and Kojeve can be understood as essentially philosophers of subjectivity in the Western tradition who have rationally illuminated, but also thoroughly exhausted the questioning of the Self about it's nature. As our great contemporary philosopher in the Continental tradtion Jurgen Habermas has noted, it's high time to move beyond the philosophy of monological subjectivity. For fresh thinking in this area and where to pick up the pieces after Hegel, Heidegger, Kojeve, etc. (rather than taking the nihilistic road of 'post-modernism') I highly recommend Habermas's _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. Habermas as successor to this line of thought is convincingly stated in the opening chapter "Modernity's Consciousness of Time and It's Need For Self-Reassurance" and in his call for moving on to a paradigm of "Intersubjectivity" and Reason understood anew as Communicative Action.

As noted by other reviewers, this reading of Hegel is a post-Nietzsche, post-Marx, post-Heidegger one (meaning it incorporates or synthesizes these post-Hegel, though influenced-by-Hegel, strains of thought). It is therefore scorned by some Hegel 'purists' like Mr. Trejo below. However, having read quite a few commentaries on and interpretations of the Phenomenology I can say that this one is the most well-written, in the sense that it illuminates some very difficult Hegelian concepts (like "Spirit" itself) in a searingly direct manner. I have also never read another writer so convincing in their argument as to Hegel's essential rightness in his description of the Concept which brings closure to the riddle of Western metaphysics.

I would agree with the 'purists' in not taking this book as the 'definitive' interpretation of Hegel - it can't excuse not reading Hegel in the original, or other commentaries - but I would call it essential within the spectrum of Hegelian thought.

Interestingly, this book shows Hegel, though famously critical of Kant, to be essentially the extender of the Kantian philosophy to it's logical conclusion which is the completion of the Concept of Experience, identified as Time itself (ZeitGeist). That is, Human Time as the Absolute Subject constructing itself rationally via reflection on it's Object-negating activity (creativity in transforming the given or present), not in the classical notion of a rational Time as existing somehow outside or independentaly of a Subject.

Kojeve's reading however, though convincing in it's demonstration of anthropologically necessary development toward Hegelian 'harmony' between Subject and Object, leaves out Hegel's attempt at the absolute identity of the Object itself. This can be read in two ways that Kojeve touches on. First, in the truer-to-Hegel sense that the Object is necessarily different from the Subject to ensure the ability of the Subject to realize itself as Self, as free Subject of Object-negating, creative, activity. Another way to read this is as simply Kojeve's dismissal of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature and it's more cosmic attempt at spiritualizing the notion of matter. Either way, as many Hegel commentator's have noted, one is left, though certainly further enlightened as to the nature of subjectivity, with a sense that there is still something 'out there' and unknown, ala Kant's 'thing-in-itself'. This can be understood as the Heidegger-influenced side of Kojeve's reading.

My own conclusion at the moment is that both Hegel and the existentialist school following him ala Heidegger and Kojeve can be understood as essentially philosophers of subjectivity in the Western tradition who have exhausted the questioning of the Self about it's nature. As our great contemporary philosopher in the Continental tradtion Jurgen Habermas has noted, it's high time to move beyond the philosophy of the monological subject. For fresh thinking in this area and where to pick up the pieces after Hegel, Heidegger, Kojeve, etc. (rather than taking the nihilistic road of 'post-modernism') I highly recommend Habermas's _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. Habermas as successor to this line of thought is convincingly stated in the opening chapter "Modernity's Consciousness of Time and It's Need For Self-Reassurance" and in his call for moving on to a paradigm of "Intersubjectivity" and Reason understood anew as Communicative Action.

Out of all the books on Gould, this is one of my favorites. I very much enjoyed it, and I believe that anyone who loves Glenn Gould as I do will love this book. :)

I found this book to be the best overall general biography on Glenn Gould. Mr Friedrich did not personally know Gould, so we have what is a good look, objectively, of Gould. He had some very good interviews with some of Glenn's closest friends and those whom he worked with. I've read it more than 4 times. We are not overwhelmed from a Musician's biographical data here, but more of what is percieved through others here. Of Course, Friedrich has some personal views but really helps to move the book along. The biggest surprise is finding out how some individuals coped with having discussions (pre-written by Gould), and their responses prewritten for them....Interesting.
Great Book....

I am a fanatic when it comes to Bach keyboard music, and so Glenn is my hero. This biography is astounding in its depth, breadth, and compassion. The writing is excellent. Read it... full stop.

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-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.

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.

The reader below who bemoans (understandably) the lack of maps in this edition can blame the publisher; there were excellent maps on the inner cover, front and back, of the hardcover edition. The book is an excellent introduction to the Weimar years.

To many, calling a book "anecdotal" is to condemn it as lacking in historical rigor. I disagree. To me, being anecdotal is synonomous with being readable---after all, who wants to be bored when reading for pleasure?

Ralph Waldo Emermson said that "there is no history, only biography." This book paints a portrait of Berlin by assembling a collage of personalities who lived there during the 1920's and 30's and who were prominent in film (Marlene Deitrich and Peter Lorre), art, music, literature (Isherwood from "Cabaret" is one, Brecht is another), science (Einstein for one), crime (serial killers-a sign of cultural decline) and ultimately politics (Goering air hero and drug addict, Goebbels the novelist and manipulator, and Hitler the artist and underestimated Southern corporal)---for politics is what ulimately dominated Germany after 1933.

Some will find the portrait uncomfortable--after all, Hitler was a moderate leftist and his Berlin cronies (Gregor Strasser and Goebbels) were far left. His supporters were the unemployed, college students, women, and teachers--- traditional stalwarts of the Democratic Party in the United States. This book will tell you how they came to support the National Socialist German Workers' Party---The N.S. otherwise known as the NA---(N)--ZI's (S's).

Overall, this book is just a good read. It covers a broad range of topics, is filled with interesting anecdotes, and will have something which should interest just about every reader.

Enjoy it.

I'm just finishing this book. Like Mr. Friedrich's "City of Nets", it's a fascinating read, well-researched & highly literate with much humor & many interviews with first-hand participants of those incredible years. Ignore the ignorami who have to denigrate a fine piece of work because it doesn't meet their narrow politically-correct preconceptions.

"ecce homo" is certainly the most, eh...'unusual' autobiography i've ever encountered, and has a fascination all its own, but i would take nietzsche to task for his constant criticism of scholars and those prefer to live in the imagination and language rather than in what he preferred to think of as 'reality. this kind of positivistic nonsense is what makes me prefer schopenhauer's philosophy to nietzsche's, in the end. its odd that a man with the sensitivity, perceptiveness and intelligence of nietzsche never seemed to realize that after awhile, the external world of people, things, egoism and power seeking simply becomes a tiresome bore. still, though, the concept of the dionysian is intriguing and the fiery, poetic quality of nietzsche's prose keeps the reader riveted to his unbelievably original thoughts and indispensable critique of christian beliefs and ascetic ideals.

the titles of the chapters are slightly amusing--"why i am so clever", "why i write such good books", "why i am a beginning". this isn't a question of not worrying about modesty, but one of impending insanity. its almost as though on some level nietzsche was aware that the end was near and that he needed to write something that expressed his heart and soul before he fell apart completely. one of the most stunning parts in the book are nietzsche's wholly accurate predictions for the twentieth century:"there will be wars such as mankind has never seen before." he said it with a certain delight, no doubt, but nonetheless, this man possessed the intuition and foresight of an almost mystical kind, although he would punch me in the mouth for saying that. he also admits some curious things about himself that contradict his professed philosophy more than slightly:"i know nothing of the 'heroic', i know nothing of 'will'. my being would rather say 'no' than 'yes'; in fact, it would rather say nothing at all." this, from the eternal yea sayer? "ecce homo" offers some curious insights into the actual psyche of the man who preached life affirmation with his more formal works.

I first read Nietzsche's Ecce Homo in August 1988. I bought another copy in October 1989 to read again to decipher more of Nietzsche's wit. On the inside cover of the first reading I wrote, "The style and the language of the writings of Nietzsche are ingenius! He stands alone with honor and respect. Psychologically dangerous to one's health for its extravagant and eloquence of expressed ideas, it is nevertheless psychologically beneficial as an eye-opener to affirm SELF and celebrate LIFE!"

"I possess a perfectly uncanny sensitivity of the instinct for cleanliness, so that I perceive physiologically, smell the proximity, or - what am I saying? - the innermost parts, the 'entrails', of every soul... I have in this sensitivity psychological antennae with which I touch and take hold of every secret: all the concealed dirt at the bottom of many a nature, perhaps conditioned by bad blood but whitewashed by education, is made known to me almost on first contact."

-- Friederich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Ecce Homo is not a book of philosophy. It is not, for that matter, a book that conforms to any conventional genre of literature to which one can relate from ordinary reading. Rather, it is an elaborate anamnesis, a haunting excursion into the strange world of a moral hygienist, written by one of the most peculiar, though no less intriguing, minds of modern European history.

Very much out of line with the spirit of autobiography, Nietzsche ridicules with remorseless cynicism the very idea of writing a book about oneself. He begins his chapters with such titles as, "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books", and "Why I Am A Destiny". Such titles, so egregious and perverse, deride the sheer arrogance presupposed by the writing of autobiography. For, if we are to be honest with ourselves, autobiographies are little more than shameless excercises in self-indulgent egotism, written exclusively for the scandalous purpose of public consumption. At no point does Nietzsche exhibit the sort of false modesty with which autobiographers make a mockery of their readers. What is presented in this book is something quite different. The readership here is never assumed to be a general audience. Marketing played was given no consideration in the writing of this book. Nietzsche takes little care (none, in fact) not to offend the reader. He writes absolutely whatever springs to mind, laying bare in defiantly candid terms his essential line of thinking, more rightly described as his 'essential attitudes', esteeming everything pleasing to his instincts and lashing out with utmost violence against every conceivable source of putrefaction and disease - German culture, Christianity, modern industrialism, the obsessive 'scholar' and bibliophilic pedant, dispiriting weather, and even English cookery. Herein lies Nietzsche's famous declaration: "I am the anti-ass par excellence and therewith a world-historical monster - I am, in Greek and not only in Greek, the Anti-Christ..."

Ecce Homo follows no chronological order. It reads quite erratically, touching upon the most random points of concern (one might say fetishes) in Nietzsche's brief, but profound life. He elaborates with great passion upon his love of Wagnerian music, his intimate hatred for false 'idealism', and the destructive consequences of excessive rationalism. " 'Rationality against instinct. 'Rationality' at any price as dangerous, as a force undermining life!" He emphasizes endlessly the importance of intellectually and spiritually conducive surroundings, of "[s]electivity in nutriment; selectivity in climate and place", making it painfully clear that Germany was thoroughly godforsaken in this respect. The reader is given a refreshing sense of what is means to be cultured and civilized in Nietzsche's view. He reveals his love of Italian life, French cuisine, and Moorish architecture. He also has been described as having an extraordinary perception for diagnosing symptoms of social rot. Nearly all of Europe, with its embrace of industry and technology, was condemned by Nietzsche as being sick to the bone. Christianity is used as an unfailing example of what it means to be truly dirty in both body and mind. Surprisingly thrown into this wild mix of bitter damnation is alcohol, entirely shunned by Nietzsche for being an influence as criminal and destructive in its effects as Christianity itself: "Alcoholic drinks are no good for me; a glass of wine or beer a day is quite enough to make life for me a 'Vale of Tears'...To believe that wine 'makes cheerful' I would have to be a Christian, that is to say believe what for me is precisely an absurdity".

Of practical value and written in the most coherent fashion are the individual chapters devoted to each of Nietzsche's books. These chapters present a 'lightning tour' of his philosophy, giving concrete definition to his most celebrated ideas. The reader is given a taste of the elevated euphoria that went into the writing of the Gay Science. Nietzsche generously quotes from Thus Spake Zarathustra, highlighting its most graceful passages in which his lyrical talents shine forth in resplendent brilliance. In the chapter titled, "The Untimely Essays", Nietzsche offers his views of scientific management and modern industrialism, unveiling "what gnaws at and poisons life, in our way of carrying on science: life sick with this inhuman clockwork and mechanism, with the 'impersonality' of the worker, with the false economy of 'divison of labor' ". Such openly Marxist overtones belie all attempts to characterize Nietzsche as the unsuspecting prophet of fascism.

Nietzsche possessed, among other things, an exceptional gift for conveying seemingly simple ideas with a profound, hammering intensity. In these pages, one will encounter a uniquely superior command of language, in lines of unrivaled grace, eloquence, and passion, and laced with the sort of formidable literary power that will violently shake the ground beneath one. It is said that Ecce Homo is "one of the supreme masterpieces of German prose". I would go so far as to suggest that R.J. Hollingdale's translation of this magnanimous work is one of the supreme masterpieces of *English* prose.

"I can write in letters that make even the blind see." -- Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ

The value of this book depends entirely on the ability of the reader to think about it. I happened to enjoy it as confirmation of many efforts I have previously made to understand Nietzsche and the world at large, and this review pays far too much attention to the world, which is as at large as ever.

Long ago, I had the opportunity to consider what Nietzsche thought about a normal appreciation for the truth, compared to the opposite which he discovered in what was most forceful. "When the Christian crusaders in the Orient encountered the invincible order of Assassins, . . . whose lowest ranks followed a rule of obedience the like of which no order of monks ever attained, they obtained in some way or other a hint concerning that symbol and watchword reserved for the highest ranks alone as their secretum: `Nothing is true, everything is permitted.' " (ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS, translated by Walter Kaufmann, p. 150). This collection of notebooks of private thoughts, which Nietzsche did not publish, reflect the process in which he prepared his work. Trying to find some secret doctrine, which the public could never understand, seems to be like trying to understand everything, as dangerous as any other aspect of his thought.

In 1872 or early 1873, he had written, "Conversely, we are returning to culture in a sectarian manner, we are trying once again to suppress the philosopher's immeasurable knowledge and convince him of the anthropomorphic character of all knowledge." (p. 57). This is so true, I need only mention GENIUS by Harold Bloom, in which "A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds" are explained by classifications which seek to glorify how individuals think. Otherwise, in our culture, "Groupthink is the blight of our Age of Information, and is most pernicious in our obsolete academic institutions, whose long suicide since 1967 continues. The study of mediocrity, whatever its origins, breeds mediocrity." (Bloom, p. ix).

When Nietzsche was becoming an expert in Greek civilization, learning about the Pre-Platonic philosophers, a battle was fought at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, early in July, 1863. The Confederacy lost that battle, but in 1870-1871, the newly united states of Germany, under Prussia, having organized its troops for rapid deployment, had triumphed in a war with France. Long years of division and deprivation had prepared Germany to become the economic powerhouse which it is today, third in the world, following the United States and Japan. In the monetary system of the world, the dollar, the yen, and now the euro are the leading currencies. The state of financial collapse which is now a threat to the dominance of globalization is best imagined by considering Iraq like Gettysburg, a battle dragged out for years instead of days, in which the United States, the chief invader (England was the foreign power which offered the most support for the Confederacy during the American Civil War), has managed to remain in the area, which it considers a battlefield on which it may yet triumph. In his notebook, Nietzsche sought the "Value of truthfulness. --It does indeed improve things! Its aim is decline. It sacrifices. Our art is the likeness of desperate knowledge." (p. 57)

Though Nietzsche has been dead for over a hundred years, the range of his thought is accessible to people who are willing to search within themselves for whatever is the matter with their situations. Trouble? I could show you trouble. Compared to the twentieth century, thinking about America in Iraq seems to be the most hopeful way to go for anyone who has hoped for money, or oil, or power, or the opportunity to be right in a way that the world can't deny. But Nietzsche went looking into the big question, and found:

"When among the tumult at the outbreak of the last great war an embittered French scholar called the Germans barbarians and accused them of lacking culture, people in Germany still listened closely enough to take deep offense at this; and it gave many journalists the opportunity to polish brightly the armor of their culture, . . . and venerable Carlyle publicly praised precisely those qualities in the Germans and, for the sake of these qualities, gave their victory his blessing, then everyone was clear about German culture; and after the experience of success, it was certainly quite innocuous to speak of the victory of German culture. Today, when the Germans have enough time to examine in retrospect many of the words flung at us then, there are probably a few who recognize that the Frenchman was right: the Germans are barbarians, despite all those human qualities." (p. 93). The distinction Nietzsche would like to draw is regarding the future: "the hope for an emerging culture vindicates the Germans: whereas one gives no deference to a degenerate and exhausted culture." (p. 93). It is necessary to look in another book to find the phrase of Goethe which Nietzsche was to include in his published work. "But another couple of centuries may have to pass before our countrymen will have absorbed sufficient spirit and higher culture for one to be able to say of them: it has been a long time since they were barbarians." (UNFASHIONABLE OBSERVATIONS, p. 10). Since the United States bombed bridges and buildings in Europe in 1999 to react to a civil war in which a ruling party there seemed uncivilized to us, perhaps the stance of the German and French people today tries to seem more cultured than the Americans as their last, best hope to avoid the terrorists that can do far more to hasten the decline of civilization than America would acting alone.

I don't like the idea that people have to study books like this. I think they should just be left lying around in the living room, next to the most comfortable chair, and anybody who is curious can just pick it up and open it to see what it says. This book has a great page 6. It helps if you can be listening to music that says the same thing, like Jewel's "Spirit," which has a song called "What's Simple is True." At the top of page 6, Nietzsche is trying to write about a philosopher who "does not stand so completely apart from the people." Nietzsche wants a philosophy that is like "art--its own transfiguration and redemption. The will strives for purity and ennoblement." People who read this without listening to Jewel might not know what Nietzsche is trying to say, but Jewel actually sings it.

There is a section on "the thirst to know it all," which doesn't seem all that great to anybody anymore, but then the last sentence on page 6 says, "The philosopher is a means for coming to rest in the rushing current, for becoming conscious of the enduring types by disdaining infinite multiplicity." If anything, Jewel ends up being too right for this book, she's so much better than the number of ways that Nietzsche might still get it wrong by his own standards. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nietzsche has gained much fame and notoriety over the 100 years since his death. This has, unfortunately, led many people to believe that they have some idea what he wrote, why and when. The other "reviews" here are a case in point.

The writings here are from the period just after The Birth of Tragedy. Specifically, these are notes and fragments from the period of the Untimely Meditations, here called Unfashionable Observations, basically 1872-74.

I was struck by the richness of these jottings, and by the breadth of topic and subject. You can find insights concerning semiology and linguistics, politics and sociology, etc., written with refreshing originality and boldness. What surprised me most of all is how readable this volume is. In some ways, it is more engaging than the published texts of the same period.

One more thing, Nietzsche's cerebral breakdown occurred many years after this period, and even so, it is quite dubious to call his writings into question even from that later period. His problem was organic, not psychological. And secondly, anyone who thinks that the value of reading Nietzsche is for "a couple of clever quotes to throw around at dinner-parties", has really missed something.

Anyone who has studied Nietzsche's philosophy will be thrilled by this collection of notes. Not only do they throw light on the Unfashionable Observations; they show how wide reaching Nietzsche's interests were at such an early period.

The reason why I do not think this is a good book on Nietzsche is because, even though I admire Deleuze outside his Nietzsche schoarship, it is the attempt to systemize Nietzsche's thought. This text is notorious, at least I believe and from the conversations on it that I have had with others, for being just down right bad because of the way in which Deleuze attempts to appropriate Nietzsche into some sort of systemized philosophical position. I know this does not get to the particulars of the book and what Deleuze argues, take this review as a gentle warning: if you love Nietzsche for all that Nietzsche is and what he has done, this book may proove to be a dissapointment. Honestly, I find it all to often (and i do realize that there is a level of interpretation at play) that students and readers of Nietzsche go about their studies of Nietzsche in a very casual and lax way, identifying with his style as a means in which serious and penetrating study of Nietzsche is overlooked. All I can say, is read Nietzsche for yourself (in German if you can) and dont think that the will to power counts, for more info on that read my review on it.

Nietzsche was not a systematic thinker and so it is very difficult to construct a book on his difficult thought. Deleuze has, however, successfully accomplished that. A combined reading of this work and Pierre Klossowski's "Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle" would provide an understanding of Nietzsche that is well beyond what is presented in most books on the author. It is sad, but we english speakers have collectively written most of the bad literature on Nietzsche. It was the french after WWII that picked-up the mantle set forth by Nietzsche after the embarrassing abuse of his thought by the Nazis.

After having reading much of Neitzsche over the years, it was not until I read this little book by Deleuze that he really came alive for me. Deleuze's guiding notion is that "force" lies at the heart of interpretation. Force also lies at the heart of Nietzsche's Will to Power. Like Wittgenstein's "games" or Derrida's "play," force is always with us. But not just in language, discourse and text, unless you consider our need to "order" the world in these terms (which you can). For force is the play of forces, of greater and lesser forces -- like Derrida's differance. But differance can be torpid and sluggish (whatever happened to the "white mythology" that lay "inscribed in the palimpsest -- active and stirring"?). In Nietzsche's The Will to Power he has a long section on chemistry and refrences to science. He equates the phyisical forces at work in the sciences as "moral." Why? -- Deleuze asks. Because it is our innate need and desire to order the universe -- to make things greater and lesser -- in science as well as morality. Thus Neitzsche writes a Geneology of Morals, with greater and lesser morals. And so it goes, with each force affecting other forces in infinite regression and progression. "Is this a kind of Hegelian dialectic?" -- you might ask. Maybe, but it seems far too messy to me. You see forces do not play within privileged paradigms. They are all about unintended consequences. There is Nietzschean repitition here but more of a mindless extrapolation of power. Like Deleuze's writings on "Nomadology" and "Rhizomes" we cannot keep track of the connections, the diversions, the diggressions. This is a kind of metaphysical madness.
Kind of like life.
A brilliant book.

Stunning novel of obsession set in Switzerland from the 1940's to the 1950's. The character of Matthias was so well drawn I felt like he was someone I knew. Forget everything you ever knew about crime novels. This is a book that many of today's top criminal thriller novelists could learn from. I read it in 2 days, even getting to work late one day for having stayed up so late reading it. I couldn't put it down.

The film is equally dark and chilling, with only a handful of changes to the plot mechanisms that made the story more cinematic.

Friedrich Durrenmatt, The Pledge (Berkeley, 1957)

While Durrenmatt is a well-known and well-respected author, it took making a film of one of his books to get most people in the States actually reading him. This new film tie-in translation of The Pledge is a great way to start, and will hopefully lead a lot more Americans to a lot more Durrenmatt.

The Pledge is the tale of Matthai, a Swiss police inspector who becomes convinced during the investigation of a child's murder that the cops have got the wrong man. He promises the victim's mother that he will find the killer, and that promise eventually leads to complete and total obsession. The novel, told by Matthai's former superior over a long auto journey and dinner, leads exactly where you think it will, and then throws in a twist so nasty it's almost painful to read. Agee's translation was completed with an eye firmly on the readability factor, and this one goes relatively quickly (especially for a modern European novel); the payoff is well worth the time spent on the setup. Absolutely fantastic, and will cause me to have to revise my Best-of-2001 list. Very highly recommended. **** 1/2

I sought out this short but sweet novel after catching the last half of the Sean Penn-directed film (yeah, I snuck in at my local multiplex, what of it?) which it inspired. The film definitely drew me in, despite the fact that I had little idea of what was going on.

As is often the case, the book is more profound than the film (which is not a knock against the screen version; after reading Durrenmatt's fine novel, I went back to see the entire movie). Told in the sparest language, "The Pledge" is the story of one man's quest to set right a wrong, taking his responsibility (and its consequences) so far as to threaten his very existence.

As other reviewers have noted, this is not a typical thriller, replete with hard-boiled narrative and the requisite twists. I found "The Pledge" to more closely echo the writings of Camus, in its examination of one man's conscience as he faces a challenge he simply can't walk away from.

A complex story simply told, "The Pledge" asks the reader to look inward and ask: "How far would you go to keep your word?"

The main trouble I have with Nietzsche is that he is so blasted illogical! Most of his errors are what logician call "informal fallacies," or error with the type of inferences he makes with his data.

To his credit, Nietzsche is a very bouncy, scintillating an energetic writer. I think that many people can learn from his literary style. I certainly have. But a well-perfumed lie is like a well-perfumed skunk: eventually both will stink, since you cannot change their nature no matter how pretty you make them up to be!

Here are some samples of hi errors:

P. 56. "Let us consider finally what naivety it is to say 'man ought to be thus and thus.'" In other words, we ought not say ought. See the internal incoherency?

Ibid. "We others, we immoralists, have on the contrary open wide our hearts to every kind of understanding, comprehension, approval." Has he opened his heart wide to accept religion or God? This, by the way, is called "dicto simplicter," or a sweeping generalization; and it is also an "iron man" argument, where you overstate your own position.

P. 64. "The error of free will. --We no longer have any sympathy today with the concept of 'free will." One you remove freedom, you remove meaning. If Hitler, Dahmer, or whom ever wasn't free to choose not to become incarnate devils, then we cannot hold them accountable. We do not blame blind people for being born blind because they simply have no control over that condition. But we do have an ability to control our own souls, to make gods and angels of ourselves, or to make demons and devils of ourselves. If we have no freedom, then we have no penal system, simply the criminal could not control his or herself. And that would be hell on earth.

Ibid. "Men were thought of as 'free' so that they could become guilt." This is probably a Freudian Slip on Nietzsche's part. Religion has a cutting edge to it--always repent and do not make excuses for your meanness. We get so concerned about the evil in the world around us; we forget the evil deep within us.

P. 66. "One knows my demand of philosophers that they place themselves beyond good and evil--that they have the illusion of moral judgments beneath them." It is good to be beyond good. It is moral to be beyond morality. In other words, Nietzsche assumes what he tries to disprove.

The only reason why I think Nietzsche's philosophy caught on is that first, he was a bouncy and vibrant voice. I enjoy reading his works because they are rather witty and quick and slicing. Secondly, his philosophy is very flattering one. God is dead; you become the Superman and replace God (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ch. 24). This unctuous punch has made many people punch drunk with lust. A very appealing idea that you can become a new god by yourself, which is the oldest lie in the Book!

The Anti-Christ:

Being a Christian does not dampen or deny my ideas, being biased against the conclusion, any more than an atheist is tainted, being biased in favor of the conclusion. Bias cuts both ways.

It is true, and no one doubts this, many abuses have been in the name of religion. But is it fair to judge a thing by its abuse? Shall we judge all Austrians by the abuses of Hitler? Do we throw out Mozart with the bathwater? No. Nietzsche makes yet another "dicto simplicter" in accusing Christians of being unworthy.

As I read his treatment of Christianity, I kept asking myself, "What religion is he talking about?" It seems that Nietzsche is describing Christianity in the worst possible of terms, as if he intentionally wants to misunderstand what the religions is about. It is like the genies or fairy that play syntax-games with the wishes they grant human beings--"Make me a sandwich!" *Poof!*

In conclusion, I find Nietzsche an engaging, fun and passionate writer. We have so man wet noodles out there; it is great to read some one with a backbone. However, Nietzsche falls apart miserably with his non-existent logic. And that is a deathblow.

The Book:

This is a great "two-fer," since both books are rather slender and trim books. Penguin Classics always does a superb job with these books-the introductory essays are helpful and the notes are useful. They type is excellent and there are no typos. I found the glossary of names in the back an added plus, since I am not up to speed on may of the German philosophers and Nietzsche's time period. The binding is strong, and the cover art is very eye catching-the man with his hefty mustache in profile.

Nietzsche’s statements are often bold, startling and thought provoking to the reader. Against ‘moralists’ and ‘religions’ (esp. Christianity) such statements might invoke hostility on Nietzsche himself by the reader. Who does understand Nietzsche, except Nietzsche himself? The reader must go beyond this degradation – for to see the world of Nietzsche one must see Nietzsche from within. Nietzsche’s philosophy of a “philosophy of life” (Paul Tillich) is the only one that is. Much can be learned from reading Nietzsche. Nietzsche valued life and perhaps understood it more so than the ‘moralists’ of yesterday and today. - First purchase and reading

Nietzsche’s philosophy, I believe, rests on his assertion: “Whether we have grown more moral” (TI, 37). Nietzsche was a man who had no need of pity or ‘convictions’ of any certainty, that be called ‘truth’ (the former, i.e., certainty, which only limits perspective). Nietzsche, firstly, was a philologist (the study of ancient literature), followed by that of a psychologist (how certain ‘concepts’ in literature ‘seduce’ man), and lastly, that of a physician (how these ‘seductions’ harm man’s health to the point of man becoming ‘morbid’). Asserting himself to be all three, Nietzsche’s philosophy and Nietzsche as philosopher sprang forth with the statement: “Revaluation of All Values” (AC, 62). Going back to the assertion above, “whether we have grown more moral,” Nietzsche is concerned with the ‘first order of rank,’ and that first order is the creation of a ‘higher type’ of ‘morality,’ that which man has been depraved of and denied, especially from ‘Christian morals.’ He is concerned with freeing man from this ‘enslaved morbid morality’ and placing him on a ladder that ascends to a ‘higher type’ of man: the Overman or Superman. It is the ‘Will to Power’ for More Life that says “Yes” to Life. But then again, this is Nietzsche’s interpretation of the history of morals… But what better interpretation is there than ‘experience.’- Second purchase and reading

This two works by one of the more influential philosophers of the end of the 19th century, must be read with a proviso. They were published posthumously by Elisabeth, his sister, in a sequence conforming to her own authoritarian views.
This said, the Antichrist is a must read for those philosophers concerned with the nihilistic (nihilismus) and transmutation of all occidental values (Umwertung aller Werte) central aspects of Nietzche's philosophy. If you read them at face value, confusion migth ensue and the intrinsic power of an effort to demonstrate the futility and perversion of certain occidental values is lost. Then the road opens for misrepresentations and the exploitation for propaganda and other purposes. To put things in perspective, one must not forget that "God's death", according to N. is a metaphysical event consisting in the slaughter of God by the human being, for the sake of truth and religion itself. According to the author, God's death appurtains to the essence of cristianism because, by way of the interpretation of Plato's philosophy, this religion considers truth and God as exogenous or outherworld elements. As a consequence of this platonic view, the world itself and its Gods appear void of basis and truth, and therefore the nihilism of the modern man ensues. That God is dead is evident, but no man lives this event as a passage and liberation from metaphysical duality ( world and outher world), in order to reconcile with the earth and real life. So, steer clear of this book, if you are faint minded, unless you are looking for material to misuse or abuse. For the theologian and philosopher, on the other hand , this is required reading.

Ebenstein's biography of Hayek is well received, as the other reviews testify. It's informative, readable, and generally fair-minded. Nevertheless I feel that the merits of this book do not deserve such high praise as was given, even by such outstanding men as Friedman. Ebenstein's understanding of Hayek's ideas is narrow and derivative, his portrayal of the man is flat. Above all, the most fundamental aspect of Hayek's thought, namely his elucidation of a complex spontaneous order (independent of the properties of the elements), is neglected. Ebenstein also completely misunderstood Hayek's criticism of Mill, which is characterized as unfair in this book. This is no minor misunderstanding, as what's at stake is Hayek's attack on the concept of social justice, again one of the most important parts of his political philosophy. Reading this book, one gets the impression that Ebenstein is a hard-working, sincere, and intelligent fellow. But as the author of the first substantial biography of Hayek, he simply does not possess enough learning or insight to carry out this task adequately.

Hayek is my favorite author not because I agree with all of his ideas, but because his books have taught me so much. I write this review as an experienced fan of Hayek, but those who have read few or none of Hayek's writings will benefit the most from reading this well-researched biography.

Never before has any writing put together so complete a picture of Hayek's life and background. If you admire Hayek as much as I do, you'll find it very satisfying to read Ebenstein's largely fruitful efforts to understand the man behind the distant - but kind - demeanor that he wore. Frankly, much of the value I got from this book came from the satisfaction of my curiosity. Those who haven't yet read much of Hayek, however, will find far more of value in Ebenstein's excellent summaries and analyses of Hayek's ideas. Ebenstein has a knack for condensing Hayek's ideas in a concise and highly readable form, which Hayek himself could not do very well. Mostly Ebenstein saw it as his function to simply summarize and explain Hayek's ideas, but he also entered into some interesting discussions about the intellectual controversies Hayek was involved in. Obviously the socialist calculation debate is one such controversy, but Ebenstein also picks out a few nits from Hayek's books, such as an inconsistent interpretation of J.S. Mill and the inspiration Hayek may have taken from a misunderstanding of Karl Popper.

I was most disappointed with the author's treatment of Hayek's strictly economic work in capital and trade cycle theory. In short, Ebenstein informs us that Hayek's views on these subjects are very far from being the accepted wisdom among economists, and that students of Hayek consider his economic work to be greatly overshadowed by his achievements in political philosophy. Both points are true, but neither goes any distance toward refuting Hayek's somewhat unique ideas about capital, business cycles, and inflation. Ebenstein nearly dismisses these theories out of hand. Readers will probably either be left unconvinced that Hayek was wrong, or they will be left with the impression that Hayek was not a very successful economist. I feel that if Ebenstein is going to reject the Austrian Business Cycle theory (ABC), he has no excuse not to provide his readers with an adequate summary of the arguments against it. First of all, a good, nontechnical argument against it could be made within the space of a few pages. Secondly, the mainstream arguments against ABC aren't usually a complete rejection of it: many mainstream economists only differ from ABC by degrees. For instance, Hayek thought that the most serious side effect of inflation was, by far, its distortion of capital investments. Some mainstream economists would agree that this distortion can take place, but they would argue that it isn't nearly as important as the other costs of inflation, such as the deadweight loss resulting from individuals' efforts to avoid having their wealth depreciated away. On the other hand, I think Ebenstein slightly understated the enormity of the chasm between the mainstream and Hayek (along with the other Austrian economists) when it comes to methodological issues. The slight mistreatments of Hayek's economics constitute my only complaints against this book. It is excellent in every other regard.

Ebenstein has written a fantastic book about the man who may go down as the greatest thinker of the 20th century. While it is obvious the Ebenstein greatly admires Hayek it does not prevent him from giving a very accurate assement of the man and his ideas. In several places in the book he points out mistakes and logically issues with several of Hayek's ideas. It seems to be all to rare these days to get such a fair and accurate view.

The biography sheds light on all the key periods and influence on Hayeks intellectual life. Its greatest service is the ability to explain many of Hayek's most complicated thoughts in terms that are both easy to understand but not over simplistic.

Highly recommended!