The most important part of Bell's book, I believe, is the chapter on Merleau-Ponty, a chapter which marks the transition from phenomenology to post-structuralism. The preceding discussion on Husserl is good, but dozens of books are out there interpreting Husserl. Rather, his exposition not only of Merleau-Ponty but of current Merleau-Ponty scholarship, is what raises this book a notch above other books of its kind. In particular, he sheds light on the contemporary debates over Merleau-Ponty's ambiguous notion of the "flesh". And he uses the ambiguity surrounding this notion as impetus into his sections on post-structuralism, notably, the philosophy of Deleuze. As far as I know, this is the first work to present the philosophical ties between Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the development of French thought in the 20th century.

I picked up this book and was very disappointed--even more disappointed than after watching Death to Smoochy. It lacked all of the wit and satirical insight that Stewart usually brings with both his writing and delivery. Granted, his performance in the movies that he has been in have somewhat failed to bring forth his dynamic humor, but this book failed beyond that of even his movies. Unfortunately, the ending never delivered the cynical turnaround/punchline that I thought he spent most of the book setting up. Honestly, I can't really even enjoy his show any more. Stay away, this book is bad news.

This book, although amusing in sound, lacks the depth and intricacy that normally shows the extremely involved beliefs of both Sartre and Merleau-Ponty.

Philosophy is really a research project involving the mind. No matter how much recent philosophers have tried to reverse an old tradition, the immaterial and the mental are really the domain of philosophy. Strange, then, that Merleau Ponty's ramblings on the "Phaenomenologie des Koerpers" should have been treated in a way which makes no attempt to distance itself from the reductive strategies of "mind" based philosophy. Priest is very much a man for whom the analytic tradition still reigns supreme, perhaps not in the scope of his work but in the methodologies he utilises. Rather than provoking interesting syntheses, Priest has rather botched the job. Avoid.