Josef Pieper's brief essay is a defense of classic CORRESPONDENCE THEORY of language as articulated by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This proposes TRUTH can be articulated...stated confidently...by Language. Language RE-presents REALITY. The essay avoids delving into difficult propositions concerning so-called INTENTIONAL Being (by which Reality conveys particular and universal essences that are asserted as Judgments: statements of sustantive Truth. Circularity cannot be avoided in such propositions. But the principal argument is asserted over-against Post-Modernist ("self-referential"; non-Logos) theories of language which are based not on Reality but on POWER (the purpose for which a statement or proposition is made; rather than to RE-present reality).

Hence: a person is not "blind"; he is visually challenged. Multiple agendas of self-esteem/homage; euphemtic avoidance of manifest reality; exercises in deception and self-absorption become subtle or blunt agencies of distortion and ever decreasing contigency upon "reality". FAIR can become FOUL...FOUL may be FAIR. As a leader who characterized himself ace mis-Re-presnter of Reality stated, "It depends on what you really mean by "IS"......

Pieper points out "Humpty-Dumpty/ Orwellian Newspeak" is nothing new. He cites 2,400 year old examples from Plato's DIALOGUES concerning Sophists' abuse of the Truth "function" of language (pp. 8-13; 18-22). Then he moves with warp speed to Nietzschean assertions of Langage as excellent vehicle of WILL TO POWER. The latter is key to Martin Heidegger's Being & Language theory (Language is the House of Being/Reality). Here Pieper makes a crucial error where he asserts Heidegger as sympathetic exponent of Freedom which truthful language preserves (p. 49). My reading of Heidegger firmly ensconces this once-Nazi philosopher in Post Modern-DECONSTRUCTION schools where language is a tool (zeug), a virtual weapon in an arsenal (zeughaus); whose purpose is not use of language for freedom but distortion of truth for CONTROL. Perhaps I am unfair in citing this error. But irony abounds here: Peiper looks to Heidegger for support when in Reality, Heidegger and his PM legions from Focault to Fish are premier exponents of the "praxis" of Language Abuse for the sake of Power.

This essay was written in 1974. Politically Correct Language (in the USA) began radical evolution. In the 80's PC became, particularly in academia and feminist satraps, common. By 1990 language abuse...leading to what Czeslaw Milos called THE CAPTIVE MIND in Eastern bloc countries...became flagrant. The problem with Josef Pieper's study is how methodically the Professor refuses to reply to adversaries of Reality/Truth with language of POWER. His essay is elegant. He rarely resorts to sarcasm or "irrefutable" barrages of facts framed in blistering rhetoric. He states his case for truth, and in good faith judges this sufficient.

"Do we have to go on?" Pieper poses (p.39). The answer is manifestly self-evident to those who bemoan or fear The Totalitarian danger thought-through-language control portends. The title: ABUSE of LANGUAGE, ABUSE of POWER is an excellent title to a good introduction about Correspondence Theory of language: Language= Reality= Truth. Let "Yes" mean Yes; "No way" mean no. The rest is (should be?) silence...

This excellent little book by Josef Pieper made me think of the movie "Repo Man". Like the movie "Repo Man" it advocated an argument against the hegemony of corporate advertisers proselytizing our minds with sophistic twists of language where it is becoming near imposible for a good decent American to even know what the meaning of "is" is. We drive down the freeway of life and are bombarded with little slogans and attempts to convince and smartly convert us to a way of thinking with marketing bill boards, or through the mail, on TV, in the paper - subtle attempts to steal our minds by over-loading them with a coorporate marketing agenda and sloganism. A bit abusive language on my part. It won't stop, but the question is worth pondering, and the questions raised in this book are of the sort that any educated man should ponder, even if there is no solution, it makes great "smartening-up" not "dumbing down" (sloganism) of the curriculum. Peiper persuasively argues that communication is not happening as much as might be thought, because communication must be void of ulterior motives. And his arguement that we must be able to express our view of the "truth of things" in freedom; why many do not is due to what he calls "the lingo of the revolution". Read it, share it with a friend. Great book - at all levels. Sugjestion - State College Professors, show "Repo man", Read this book, have a discussion, essay. Private Colleges, skip Repo man.

In this slender, but powerful work, the great (and often overlooked) Thomistic scholar Josef Pieper sends out a call to arms against "every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality . . . [and] well-turned yet empty slogans . . ." He pulls no punches in taking on those modern (and ancient) sophists who rape and pillage language in order to obtain political power and cultural currency. He also takes on modern advertising, noting that we live in an age and culture where "what is decisive is not what you say, but how you say it." In an era of politically-correct pap, vapid mantras and bumper-sticker philosophy, this book sends a clear, clean note of truth into the murky darkness of a deafened and confused populace.

This is a collection of brief speeches given the late Josef Pieper, one of the most popular Thomist philosophers of the last century. The topics addressed include work and leisure, music, seeing, sculpture, celebration, and contemplation.

The book's title is taken from St. Augustine's remark that "only he who loves can sing," and if there is an underlying theme to these occasional pieces it is that art and love, aesthetics and spirituality, cannot be divorced. A sample quote: "Contemplation is visual perception prompted by loving acceptance."

Due to their brevity, these essays can only be suggestive. But perhaps they may whet the reader's appetite for more substantial portions of Pieper's thoughtful yet accessible philosophizing.

This is an excellent book that allows for the integration of appeciating the aesthetic value of a piece of art, poetry, or music to meditation and contemplation. What is more, the value of this small book is tremendous in content and wisdom, integrating the thought of some of the most intellectual geniuses, such as: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Nietzsche, and many others. For such a small piece of work, it carries a lot of value and significance, which can be applied to our daily lives.

This is a beautiful little book, actually a compil-
ation of lectures delivered at musical events and
openings. With references to the ancient philosophers,
it reminds us of the moral and spiritual force
of genuine "seeing" and "hearing." A learned series
of essays, but written in an accessible, and poetic, way.

Pieper begins this short book with the observation that while sin still have grave connotations in our
language, it is used largely for humorous effect in modern times.

Confucius once observed that the first step in philosophical debate was to agree on one's terms, and Pieper does a neat little job of investigating what the misunderstood yet evocative word "sin" means. His chief foundation is Thomas Aquinas, but he does a very impressive job of integrating modern, Eastern, and other pre-Christian sources; I did not realize how the concepts of expiation, confession, and original sin have parallels in Eastern and Classical thought. Even Sartre and Nietzsche--hardly Christians themselves!--are used in very sensitive, perceptive ways to show what sin does to us.

The book begins with observations on how sin is perceived in modern times, and then analyzes what the word sin actually means (to "miss the mark"), and how the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek writers have used the the word sin. Building this foundation, we begin to delve into the psychological basis of sin, and look at
a very troubling paradox of sin: "if sin is going against our nature, how can our natural desires lead us to sin?" This question of what exactly drives us to sin haunts much of the book, and Pieper gives no easy answers, but rather opens up this debate for the reader, and gives many references, allowing one to pursue this question on one's own later on.

For anyone who wants to know more about why we do evil things, this is a good beginner's guide. Pieper is intelligent but
accessible, and the book is very compact. Sometimes I wish he would have spent a litle more time developing some ideas--he sometimes takes Scholastic philosophical terms for granted, and while he defines them clearly, it would have been nice if he shows why these definitions are relevant to us. For instance, he observes that the term "order" has a static, fixed connotation to the modern person, but to the Medievals, it could mean a dynamic process. Pieper then adopts the Medieval view without telling us why we should take the Medieval one over the modern. This could have been easily explained by noting how scientific laws, while they are fixed equations, describe dynamic events, like radio waves, falling objects, and chemical reactions. Such an explanation would have been easily within Pieper's capabilities, and would connect his wealth of Scholastic understanding to the modern reader more easily.

Still, that quibble aside, this is a very readable, educational book, and I recommend it.

All too often, the word "sin" stirs up notions of personal responsibility, even guilt, which is uncomfortable and would rather avoid. So we blame our genes, an incurable illness, or we simply declare flatly (without evidence) that this is "human nature".

However, I find that this book places this concept in its proper perspective. Pieper opens his discourse with a quote from T.S. Eliot's "The Cocktail Party", which is illuminating: "I should really like," says Celia, "to think that there's something wrong with me. Because if there isn't, there's something wrong... with the world itself. And that's so much more frightening! That would be terrible. So I'd rather believe there's something wrong with me, that could be put right."

This book is one of the essential studies of St. Thomas's life and thought. It is especially valuable because it preserves some of the profound insights of two other Thomists whose books have either never been translated into English (Grabmann) or are, alas, out-of-print (Chenu). Pieper's treatment of St. Thomas's (and Aristotle's) use of language is absolutely essential reading for beginning students of Aquinas who have not read the more thorough treatments (by Chenu and Blanche - now largely forgotten) upon which it is based. Pieper also captures better than most biographers the importance of Thomas's decision to embrace both of the apparently opposed movements of his day, the back-to-the-Bible movement of the mendicant orders and, the modern, scientific movement of Aristotelianism.

There are a few points on which I think Pieper is wrong, most importantly on the question of Thomas's "Aristotelianism." In his justifiable attempt to show that Thomas is not an unqualified Aristotelian, Pieper goes too far the other direction and leaves the reader with the impression that Thomas was a defender of Plato. Especially troubling is Pieper's citation of passages from Thomas's Commentaries on Aristotle's De Anima and Metaphysics, which he, Pieper, claims defend Plato against Aristotle's criticisms: I cannot figure out how Pieper could construe the cited passages in such a way. Also, Pieper's criticism of the Inquistion, the Dominican order's role in it, and Thomas's defense of it seems surprisingly naive coming from an author steeped in the history of the Church. But these are relatively minor flaws in an otherwise worthy study of St. Thomas.

My rating of other books on St. Thomas: (1) Josef Pieper, The Silence of St. Thomas. ***** One of the very best books on St. Thomas Aquinas; see my ... review. (2) G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas: the Dumb Ox. ***** A justly acclaimed popular account of the life and work of St. Thomas; a thoroughly enjoyable reading experience for student and general reader alike. (3) Marie-Dominique Chenu O.P., Toward Understanding St. Thomas. ***** THE indispensible work for every serious student; sadly, out-of-print. (4) Ralph McInerny, St. Thomas Aquinas. **** A scholarly introduction to Thomas's philosophical thought, which emphasizes Aquinas's indebteness to Aristotle and Boethius. (5) Jean-Pierre Torrell O.P., St. Thomas Aquinas: the Person and his Work. **** Currently the standard scholarly biography.

This is a very difficult book that will help you to understand St Thomas philosophy. It turns very slow, sometimes.

I have read this book twice and gained valuable information both times. After Chesterton's "Saint Thomas Aquinas," this is by far the best introduction to Thomas Aquinas. I highly recommend it.

Yet, whatever I could say about this book, Pieper himself already has said it in the preface, where he outlined the purpose and goal of his book. So, I'll let you read Pieper instead of me:

"This book is closer to the spoken than to the written language. It is based on a series of university lectures given before collective student bodies. Its purpose and scope are precisely what the title suggests: to serve as a guide and introduction. It is intended neither as a detailed biography of Thomas nor as a systematic and comprehensive interpretation of his doctrines. Not is it meant to be an original contribution to the historical study of medieval philosophy. Everyone acquainted with the field will see at once to what degree my account is based, far beyond the specific quotation, on the works of Marie-Dominique Chenu, Etienne Gilson, Fernand van Steenberghen, and others.

"The purpose of these lectures is to sketch, against the background of his times and his life, a portrait of Thomas Aquinas as he truly concerns philosophical-minded persons today, not merely as a historical personage but as a thinker who has something to say to our own era. I earnestly hope that the speculative attitude which was Thomas' most salient trait as Christianity's "universal teacher" will emerge clearly and sharply from my exposition. It is to this end alone, I repeat, that I present the following chapters, and it is this aspect for which I accept full responsibility."

Pieper's interpretation of Plato's late Dialogue Phaedrus, and how Plato's views of where and how divine inspiration comes about, or what he calls "being-beside-oneself". Of all of Pieper's books I have read, thus far, none conjured up similarities of thought to Von Eschenbach's "Parzival", or Joseph campbell, or Allan Watts as this book does. His discription of the complications of staying in the state of "being-besides-oneself" may be the sort of advice Parzival might have used on his first experience of being in the Grail Castle; or, for that matter, for a surfer riding a wave. Pieper says the trouble is, "He can on condition (of being-besides-oneself) that when recieving the impetus born of emotion, he accepts and sustains it in lasting purity. In this context the possibilities of corruption, adulteration, dissimulation, pretension, and psuedo-actualization lie dangeriously close." It reminds me of Joseph Campbell saying "the privilidge of a life-time is being who you are"; or Allan Watts discussing the benifits of living in spontaneity, trusting in one's first thoughts, without the duelistic inner voice of self-doubt that makes one a splintered person; or, for that matter, "The Force"; or, further, the Kaballa's admiration of chaos; or Albert Camus' facination with the absurd. Pieper, in a nutshell, states that this divinely inspired "being-besides-oneself" may come from an unforseen act of chaos or "ecstatic frenzy"; or submission to god, creation; or Poetic mania; or beauty (of a very specific nature). Peiper, seemed to be saying, that like the Holy Grail, this "being-besides-oneslef" is a difficult thing to find if one is, on the whole, consciously looking for it. Pieper seemed to struggle to find a voice for this book, and it didn't seem entirely complete, thus the 4 stars.

This little book lacks Josef Pieper's usually flare, but it is still very good.

The subtitle is very important -- "Plato's Case Against Secular Humanism" -- for it tells us what Peiper is up to. He is arguing against secular humanism which he defines in the following way:

"We do not need any supernatural answers; we ourselves takes care of any psychological problems that call for relief; any "art" that neither satisfies a specific need, even if this need is only entertainment, nor serves the political and technological control of the world is not welcome; and above all, sexuality must not be hindered in its expressions or idealized romantically."

Pieper responds to this anthropology through a careful analysis of Plato's "Phaedrus." His answer can be divided in the following four points:

1. It is only when the human person looses his or her rational sovereignty that he or she can gain a wealth of intuition, light, truth, and insight into the MYSTERY of reality.

2. It is only when we realize that we have inherited the guilt of the human race -- i.e., that in some way, we are all responsible for the moral evils in the world -- can we open ourselves up to Divine Healing.

3. True poetry transcends rationality insofar that is originates in divine inspiration. (Note: this is one of the sub-themes of the Dead Poet's Society.)

4. Natural beauty must be seen as a metaphor for divine beauty. Natural beauty gives us an eschatological awareness by awakening in us a yearning to behold divine beauty.

This book is not very easy to read, but very profound, especially if you are interested in a philosophical starting point for dialogue with modern and post-modern men and women.

This is a short essay on the real location of happiness. Pieper writes this book in a sofisticated way (perhaps is the translation) but his ideas are clear and deep.

This is an interesting book. It appears that Pieper is a German Thomist who has written a general interest book on Scholasticism. He identifies 529 as the turning point from Hellenism to Scholasticism, or the Middle Ages. That is nearly the date that Augustine died, 525, and the date that Cassiodorus headed for the hills. It is also the epoch of Boethius, who had one foot is both eras. The primary access to Aristotle during this time was the Peri Hermenia and Categories, thus entailing a focus on language and logic. Only with the introduction of Aristotle around 1215 do we get the revival of Averroism and Aquinas. More treatment of logical issues and ontological questions would be welcomed, as Pieper concentrates primarily on theological questions. Evenso, this is a once over very lightly treatment of medieval philosophy that is well written and intelligently conceived.

Written prior to the recent interest in medieval studies, this book still gives a fine introduction to the era, and explains the significance not only of the great Scholastics, but also of lesser known figures like Cassiodorus, Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Salisbury, and Siger of Brabant. Both the fundamental problematic of the Scholastic--to unite the deliverances of faith and reason, in accordance with the motto "Credo ut intelligam"--and the attempts of different philosophers to carry out this project are detailed and explained clearly and in simple language. This book does not, however, discuss philosophical problems in any detail, and can only serve as a general introduction. Still, its brevity, clarity, and self-contained approach make it a good starting place for the philosopher interested in this topic.

"Belief and Faith" is a book about a polemic topic where the author uses opinion from religious people and some philosophers. Belief is first defined in the book as the regarding of something as true on the testimony of someone else. To believe is equivalent to taking a position on the truth of a statement and on the actuality of the matter stated. Before getting to this definition, the author addresses the "true" meaning of root words: how it's defined in advance based on other opinions versus the version that a person has in the back of his/her mind based on personal experience and how it's applied to the situational context.

Actually belief is one of the "classical" modes of possible attitudes: doubting, supposing, knowing and believing. These attitudes as the insight into a subject matter will make the distinction between knower and believer. The latter is able to regard a subject as true and real even without knowing the subject at all. It seems essential that two elements are presented when someone acts as a believer: unfamiliarity (lack of knowledge) with the subject matter and unconditional conviction of the truth. In other words, content cannot be verified but it's accepted. Also believing involving a person on whom the believer relies on.

The author discusses the importance of other two elements: to believe in something and to believe someone. The condition of believing in someone gives to belief a meaningful human act. Besides the fact of believing in something or someone, the author states that belief is driven by willing and love, it can't be demanded or be-stowed. The believer is placed in a condition of seeing something that would never be attainable by his/her own unaided sight, of seeing with the eyes of whom he/she believes.

Another idea shared by the author is seeing and knowing takes precedence over belief. Before someone accepts the testimony of another person, normally called witness, he/she must be sure that this person has authentic knowledge of those things, which are accepted in faith. In this sense, people's credibility and knowledge are judged as part of the believing process.

The author relates belief to freedom. No one who believes must believe, it's naturally a free act. The believer has an alternative of choice, believe or not believe, that is based on a set of processes that the author defines as "mental unrest". These processes are searching investigation, probing consideration, conferencing with oneself before deciding and being on the track of.

As a climax of the discussions presented, the author presents belief in two concepts: "acceptance of the principles of a religion" and Karl Jasper's concept of belief as a modern thought. In the former concept, the witness is God Himself. There is a revelation from God to man where He is conceived as a personal being capable of speech and the man is conceived as a being by nature receptive to God. In the latter concept, the author criticizes the arguments used by Karl Jaspers that leads to the questioning of the traditional religion belief. The author explores in more details how the belief assumes the actuality of revelation and how the modern experience of the "absence" of God leads to the "troubled atheism".

After discussing all the concepts above, the author digs into the principles of the Christianity believes: Trinity and Incarnation. He finishes the book with the question: Is it good to believe? The answer is based in the following: If God has really spoken, it is not only good to believe Him; rather the act of believing generates those things which in fact are goodness and perfection for man.

I think the book is well organized covering the topic from different angles and the author mentions opinions of people with different thoughts. At the end, the author biases the conclusion telling his believes in Christianity.

The book is easy to read because the author explains the ideas and "tries" to prove them in a logical way. Definitively this is not a scientific book. It deals with a controversial theme giving different thoughts based on religion and philosophical principles.