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.

Honestly, I'm only about half the way through this book, but so far its proven to be a well done, interesting, and critical (not meant in the negative sense) overview of major religions and religious movements. I would have given this book 4.5 stars if the option was their. Kaufmann knows his stuff, and as a result of his backround as a philosophy proffesor at princeton, he poses good questions and relates religious thought to philosophers like Nietche (pardon my spelling) * note- he is pretty critical on about christianity.

War is a major topic in this book, not merely in a historical sense, but as a spiritual component of religion which the most modern theologians have sought to surpass, and which was not foremost in the mind of Congress when a supreme being was considered the necessary first cause for anyone who wished to consider himself a conscientious objector, back when it was not too important what any herself would think on that topic. Americans have come to think of war as an exceptional situation which is subject to being *over* at some point, and it is a rare professor who can convince them that war is so typical that even a religious system might consider The Bhagavadgita, or Gita for short, a sacred scripture in which Krishna urges Arjuna to fight because it is a surefire way to acquire knowledge. "Therefore fight, O scion of Bharata! Whoever thinks that this slays and that that is slain, lacks knowledge. He is never born, nor does he die; nor having been once, does he cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, changeless, primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." (p. 240).

People who consider this kind of experience somewhat mystical usually have gotten more of an education from reading newspapers and policy journals than in school. Top policy experts who might expect religion to furnish little in their search for snappy intellectual comebacks which are decent enough to use in public, as well as those who crave world responsibility with an inflated sense of their own respectability, ought to see how these elements combine in this book.

RELIGIONS IN FOUR DIMENSIONS by Walter Kaufmann, published in 1976, with 250 photographs taken by the author, was the product of a life of pondering a world in which America seemed to hold so many of the answers, but the rest of the world, as could be observed in the pictures, had many more people. As a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, Walter Kaufmann also had a background in American military intelligence during World War II, and a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1947. This period, and the pattern of government psychological preparation of American citizens for world responsibilities, is part of the background information covered in HARVARD AND THE UNABOMBER by Alston Chase. The effort to produce a general understanding of the situation is undercut by the research on the cutting edge of a sense of the concept, "the Dyad," which is explained in HARVARD AND THE UNABOMBER as "in fact a personal concept," (p. 243) that might be about as personal as what anyone would expect impeachment proceedings to be about, if another president is impeached like Bill Clinton was in 1999.

RELIGIONS IN FOUR DIMENSIONS does not claim to be about any secrets, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that secret weapons and deals have been one of the main factors in the triumph of anything which is successful on such a vast scale. Comparing beliefs in particular doctrines is similar to evaluating the stability of various houses of cards. While none is judged on how well it might hold water, Walter Kaufmann is particularly able to point out differences in the scriptures of the religions which claim a common source.

"According to tradition, the Prophet was illiterate, and the Biblical material in the Koran shows that he had not read the Bible nor had a Bible at hand. His knowledge of the Bible was plainly second-hand and oral; he knew what Jews and Christians had told him, but not necessarily what was actually in the Scriptures and what was later Jewish or Christian lore. Moreover, Jews and Christians have often charged that he also made simple mistakes and, for example, confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Muhammad, in turn, accused the Jews and Christians of having falsified their scriptures." (p. 164).

It is no wonder that tradition can accept illiteracy as furnishing a more substantial basis than the state of scripture as we have received it, tattered and possibly torn by competing efforts to translate and interpret unfamiliar languages, as none of these originally appeared in the standard English of Americans today. Trying to find a real hero, Kaufmann attempts real comparisons.

". . . the contrast between Muhammad and Jesus is great, if not nearly so vast as that between Muhammad and the Buddha. Among the great Christians, Muhammad may seem to resemble Calvin most of all because Calvin, too, was the ruler of a city and therefore confronted with practical concerns; both made much of the sublimity and sovereign power of God, who had predestined some for salvation and others for damnation, and both demanded submission to God's sovereign decree. But Calvin was very much a northerner, icy rather than ardent, severe and ascetic, while Muhammad was in all of these respects his diametric opposite." (p. 165).

For a really great comparison, Moses is the match for Muhammad. "Both impressed upon their followers that they were not divine but merely messengers of God. God was so great that by comparison they themselves were essentially like their fellow men, distinguished only by their mission to serve as God's mouthpiece." (p. 165). But some distinctions were to last a long time. "Truly, the sinners are immortal in the torment of hell. It does not abate for them, there is no hope for them." (p. 188).

Even though Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher, I must agree with the other reviewers. Is doesn't take a genius to see that this was indeed a notebook and not nearly ready to be published. The Will To Power does put forth some very strong ideas, but the way they are put together here is just too much for the reader. He is on to another topic before you even know what the hell is going on. It would have been curious to see how this book turned out if Nietzsche did put his touch on it. Instead we are left with a book that remains unclear, and was not meant to leave his writing desk (the idea was shelved in favor for "The Revaluation Of All Values" ,which was supposed to be in four parts, the first part was finished and became "The Antichrist"). It is very good in places, I did enjoy it, but it was way too much to take. Try "The Gay Science," "Beyond Good And Evil," or "The Antichrist". And then you will see why people like me love reading Nietzsche. This is more for people who have everything else by him already and are looking to complete their library. Obviously Nietzsche's sister saw the dollar amount when she had it published posthumously.

This work is only going to appeal to a few people. Some will simply pick it up as entertainment, some will only buy it to complete their collection or perhaps buy it for reference. However there are a select few who will read this, perhaps on accident, or on advice from some of the reviewers here and they will discover a new world. That is one of the things that initially attracted me to philosophy, to feel and understand different ways of seeing the world. As beautiful as Nietzsche's ideas may be, I often find he is the most misunderstood philospher. I am not going to go into the cliched rant about how he was misinterpreted by the Nazis, etc. Personally I think that hit the nail on the head on most his ideas. Yes, he was not antisemitic and the nazis were. However Nietzsche seemed to still advocate mass murder for the weak, by they white, black,jew, etc. What I find most laughable is those people who like to talk about how Nietzsche doesn't have a true interpretation or how he contradicts himself. Contradiction in the sense of logical contradiction will be impossible to find in Nietzsche's works. If he appears to contradict himself on the surface, then you should be guaranteed that you have failed to understand him in the right manner. Nietzsche is not that difficult to understand. If you read his works enough, and don't have certain preconceptions in mind then it shouldnt' be a problem. Nietzsche was an immoralist. He says it is this book and in his published works as well. I find is simply ludicrous that people will constantly try to make his ideas less severe and harsh. He believed morality was much like taste for foods. Morality is determined by the person's biology. Ubermensch would be those persons who had biology that was superior (in his view, obviously since I don't anyone would seriously try to support an objective notion of superiority) while the weak in his view were weak precisely because of their physiology. Since Nietzsche believed that the soul or the mind was really nothing over and above the body, then obviously people's behaviors, traits,etc. would be determined almost exclusively by their physiology. Much like a person may prefer certain breeds of dogs to others, so did Nietzsche prefer certain breeds of humans to others (although the perfect breed for him, the Ubermensch, did not exist yet). A certain breed of dog would only seem to be superior or inferior to another breed (according to a particular's persons view) based on their traits were are predominantly biological determined. Just apply this example to humans. Now many may bicker about how Nietzsche never uses these examples. True,but if you understand someone's ideas well enough you should be able to characterize it in words and examples other than their own. I have found that the greatest difficulty with Nietzsche is connecting his ideas in a logical and coherent framework. Because of the nature of his writings, often aphoristic, poetic, and unconventional for philosophers, he is easily misunderstood. Unfortunately he often uses a word to mean different things in different contexts and he is usually not specific about exactly what many of the terms he uses means. However if you read enough of his work and think long enough, as I did, you begin to connect the ideas and decipher the meanings in their specific contexts. Do not candycoat Nietzsche. In Ecce Homo, one of his last published works, he talks of how he has been misunderstood and interpreted in a very innocent way. He says that most people interpreted his superman (and I think this word should be used instead of overman...Bruce Detwyler gives a good reason why in his book, Nietzsche: the politics of aristocratic radicalism--i suggest you take a look at this work if you have difficulty understanding Nietzsche rather than Kaufman---remember just because someone is an accepted scholar on something doesn't make them right..especially since a great deal of recent Nietzsche scholarship from Detwyler, Schutte, and Gillespie have greatly disputed Kaufman's views)as a half saint, half genius, as the very opposite of what Zarathustra, the annihilator of morality, was supposed to be...

When I first got into Nietzsche, the Will to Power was the second book I bought of his works. Although people may criticize it as being something not worth as a book- it is a great hand in understanding Nietzsche's philosophy. With this book you get to follow the development of his thought- understand the reasoning he made to put whatever thoughts into his works. Many, many people don't have the mental capacity to really understand him, thus because they can't understand, they can only criticize him. Their own personal views run themselves over- contradicting his first statement of the book "A book for thinking, nothing else: it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else-". If your not willing to go "hmmmmm....", then stop pretending that you can analyze his works because your 100 miles away from even nudging a thought.

Professor Kaufmann explicitly states why the humanities are important: "...the humanities may hold the key to the future of humanity." In this book Professor Kaufmann addresses the problem of teaching subjects in the humanities in the current ethos pervading higher education levels. He is clear and precise in his diagnosis of the problem, and equally clear and precise as to what must be done to make the humanities once again relevant and meaningful.

This book is a call to intellectual integrity no less than a consideration of the issue of teaching the humanities . Professor Kaufmann exemplifies that integrity in his work and provides compelling arguments for why we should consider his point of view.

Art, Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History are the core of the humanities curriculum. Although he does not mention it, I would include Archeology as well.

Much of what he says seems common sense. It is a mistake for the humanities to seek to be scientific. This erodes credibility in these collective disciplines rather than enhances it. The advancement of new knowledge, or new understandings that can be drawn from these disciplines is lacking because of overspecialization, what he refers to as microscopism, of the academics engaged in humanities research. Professor Kaufmann only deals with the work of academics in the academic setting. While his assessment seems reasonable regarding a great deal of work that goes on, I think it may be viewed as perhaps a little excessive if one includes published books authored by academics in a humanities discipline.

In discussing what needs to be done the contrast of the scholastic vs. the socratic mind is important. A return to a socratic ethos, a probing and questioning of all that is taught is indispensable as is an inter-disciplinary approach to all subjects. He identifies several ways of avoiding learning anything from a text. Dogmatism, Exegetical reading, Dialectical reading of a text, all of these are defined and discussed as to their impact of learning. Kaufmann provides his view of how a text ought to be read: Not with the antagonism of a closed mind but "...we must allow ourselves to be addressed by the text, we must hearken for its distinctive voice, we must try to discern how it differs from all other voices. We must permit it to challenge, shock and offend us."

Kaufmann spends part of the book making a case for why Religion ought to be taught along with the other disciplines. Comparative Religion is the means of examining our own and our society's faith and morals, ideologies and values. Kaufmann's was a penetrating mind and reading his work is well worth the effort, there is much in this book to consider while facing our collective future.

It is difficult for me to get past the first picture of the old temple in Cambodia, taken by Walter Kaufmann in 1963, at the beginning of this book. The day has its hours and minutes, but Cambodia has its years. It has been 31 years since I was in Cambodia, and the artistic possibilities of that much time don't apply in abstract ways, like taking that many years away from being funny. Most of the pictures in this book try to find something to praise in old things, including mummies, and the "old is beautiful" theme seemed perfectly appropriate for a philosophy which was so wrapped up in living. I didn't think this book was as deep as some that I have read. I can't imagine what would ever make a book like this popular, but that hasn't usually been my concern. If I tried to produce a philosophy of time that could encompass the confusion which the really famous philosophers of the 20th century produced on that subject, I would only be misleading the readers of this review about the nature of this book. This is just a study in time appreciation, like an ecologist might like trees and animals. Barely literate scholars might assume they are studying philosophy when they read this book, but I'm not going to say anything that would make it seem at a lower level than what it is. This is a picture book by someone who appreciated poetry and philosophy, had great taste in literature, but was trying to communicate with people who had no sense of greatness. Or maybe I'm missing something because I didn't notice anything heroic.

Looking for a textbook? A scholarly exegesis of Being and Nothingness? The final answers to all of life's questions? Then you've come to the wrong place. Looking for a thought-provoking anthology of existentialist (and quasi-existentialist) authors, which flows effortlessly from one section to the next, and brings a smile (or a furrowed brow) to all who read it? Then I can think of no better book.

The selections in this book were chosen for their readability, not their weight, so academic philosophers may find this book lacking. But were it not for books like this, which enchant the layman and force him (or her) to examine primary sources, would there be any philosophy majors?

From Camus' notion of a sustaining inward rebellion, to Sartre's brilliant reevaluation of ethics (prose in "Self-deception", poetry in "The Wall"), to the great battle over Christianity between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, there is certainly something of vital importance to most people contained in these pages. As an individual's right is sovereign, I will not urge you to like this book, or even to read it - this, like all things, you must decide for yourself.

I read this book for an Existentialism graduate course. It is extremely entertaining (from a literary frame) and does an incredible job displaying the diverse appearances of existentialism from a wide source of writers. It's not too heavy for non-philosophy types and still does each author in it justice.

"Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre" is in my opinion an excellent introduction to the thoughts and works of the Existentialists. It contains excerpts from the 19th Century Germans, as well as the 20th Century French, and a handful of others as well. I was glad to see literary works included, especially the Introduction to Dostoevsky's "Notes From the Underground," which I consider to be one of the greatest novellas ever written (read the whole thing, the second part is much different from the first, but is no less enjoyable) and Sartre's short story "The Wall." I was also glad to see Camus' "The Myth of Sissyphus" included, and as the last piece especially. It is, of course, absolutely pertinent for anyone interested in the subject matter to consult each of the writers included in this anthology more in depth. However, this work serves as an excellent introduction

A wonderfully diverse, provocative collection of essays on Freud, Jaspers, Nietzsche, Goethe and others by the noted Nietzsche-biographer and perhaps unjustifiably neglected philosopher. From my perspective, of particular and enduring interest is "Heidegger's Castle", which finds the famous phenomenologist's philosophy wanting in a variety of ways.

You don't have to agree with everything Kaufmann writes to find the book valuable for the range of the ideas it touches on. At times, direct and humorous.

The Princeton philospher was not noted for original thought, unlike other more well known 20th century philosophers such as Russell, Wittgenstein and Sartre. However, what he was good at was being a sort of philosophical "critic." Kaufmann was a very erudite man who wrote lots of great stuff on the arts, history, literature and philosophy as well as the relationship that the three share with each other.

The present book details the infamous existential motif of art replacing religion as the representative of what is most sacred in the human spirit. Kaufmann writes about the joys and knowledge that are offered by great tragedies and the dark poetry of writers such as Rilke.

Kaufmann also does a credible job of critiquing several philosophers, historians and literary figures. Among the people he discusses are Goethe, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Rilke and Hegel. Particularly interesting is his napalming of Heidegger. I have always thought Heidegger was over-rated & Kaufmann's comical (although valid) tirades were quite refreshing.

Kaufmann ends with a compelling critique of the historian Arnold Toynbee, insisting that Toynbee's attempt to be both poet and historian calls into question the veracity of his exegesis of the facts of history.

This is a great book for anyone who is interested in philosophy & the arts since the time of Shakespeare. This book is especially for people interested in 20th century philosophy & those who ponder its future trajectory.

The fourth edition claims to have these advantages: it includes (1) a selection from Rousseau (2) additional material from Locke's Essay and (3) a new translation of the Meditations.

(2) consists of a short chapter on faith and reason. In exchange, we've lost II.11, on abstraction. Since there's little material from Book III, and nothing from III.vi, it's very hard for the reader to make sense of Berkeley's extended attack on abstract ideas in the introduction to the Principles.

Re. (3): Inexplicably, the editor has decided to replace John Cottingham's standard 1986 translation of the Meditations with a 'new' translation by Laurence Lafleur, first published in 1951. Perhaps the editor had no choice, but it seems disingenuous to present this as an improvement.

Moreover, the third edition included a crucial selection from Kant's first Critique (the transcendental deduction); this has been deleted.

This is a big step down from the third edition.

This anthology would (does?) make a good text for a history of philosophy class as well as a companion to classically-inclined philosophers such as Nietzsche (who Kaufmann has played no small role in creating for the English-speaking world) and Heidegger. It is as good as an anthology as I've seen covering the pre-medieval period. That said, the volume suffers from a lack of depth and would benefit from the more extensive footnotes and references to primary sources or translations that I've grown accustomed to in Kaufmann's other works.

This is quite possibly the poorest exposition of these people ever written- and the rest of the series is the same. His translations of Nietzche are excellent and beautiful but as a philosopher Kaufmann is trying to speak with the mouth of Nietzche, but a rather poor Nietzche at best. The angry style is sad for an academician unless he or she is a genius of Nietzche's calibre.

I read this book in its early years, and the subjects of the book hardly excited me, but it was the first volume of a trilogy, and I was ready to try to prove that figures in a modern America rich with electronic soundtracking of music for every form of public activity (and for more private activities than were written about in his philosophy) was a much richer form of emotional communication than any that Goethe was able to write down on a page. On the topic of sex alone, I could hum more tunes than he knew, maybe. But the funny thing was that he considered "Kant's immense influence has proved catastrophic." Among the recently departed, Isaiah Berlin is quoted on the back of this book praising Kaufmann for making people see that Hegel "was a most audacious, profound and devastating, at times wildly turbulent, thinker." I wish I could ask everybody, aren't we all? Page 288 raised the question "how I would feel if someone sent me an essay of such length in which he tried to show how Nietzsche had been 'a disaster.'" I think he would feel even worse, or possibly more joyous in another's misfortune, if he could read all the web pages that show what people, now, are saying about Martin Heidegger, who is merely accused of "Dogmatic Anthropology" in the Trilogy outline which appeared in this volume.