The writer of the above review has done a great job of conveying the basic arguments and value of Strauss's translation of the Hiero and his discussion with Kojeve. I think that there is yet more to be said. Strauss as a political philosopher argued the case that with Machiavelli modern political thought begins. One cannot help when reading the Hiero to begin to see further, it was already convincingly argued in Thoughts on Machiavelli, how Machiavelli's famous treatise The Prince is in many ways a response to this dialogue from Xenophon. The discussion of tyranny and the "joys" and "protections" that stem from such a life are questioned in the Hiero because of the ramifications of tyrannic rule. Strauss, in typical fashion, articulates and expands on the argument presented in the Hiero. The responses from Kojeve bring the classical into conflict with the most progressive of modern thought, the concept of the universal state. Particularly valuable in this edition is the collection of the correspondence of the two respondents which clarify, and present a more honest argument, the public discourse extant in the formal essays. Read this book as a companion to "The Prince" or studies of Hegel to see the dialogue between "Classical" and "Modern" or even "Post-modern" thought.

This astounding book, On Tyranny, pits Leo Strauss against Alexander Kojeve in the never ending battle of the Ancients against the Moderns. The book begins with the text of Xenophon's Hiero, followed by Strauss's in depth discussion of the Hiero. Then the fireworks start!

Kojeve, in his discussion of Strauss's comments, will elucidate his peculiar mixture of Hegelian, Marxist, and Heideggerian philosophies in order to defend the unity of 'Tyranny and Wisdom' at the end of history, with some amusing asides on Strauss's tendency to build a philosophical cult. Modern tyranny (Stalinism) is rational, or wise, because it leads to the universal, homogenous state. The state in which everyone -- people, politicians, and philosophers -- will be fulfilled. This state, where the people will be safe, politicians renowned, and philosophers enthralled by the rationality of it all, will happen as a result of historical action, or work. We will be living in a world that we made with our own hands. And, as the conflicts of history weed out ever more irrationalities, we come to feel more and more at home in this fabricated, technological world. This leads to less conflict and more fulfillment. Which means, as Kojeve said elsewhere, "History is the history of the working slave." This leaves some of us, Strauss included, wondering if the only thing more wretched than being a slave would be living as a contented one.

Strauss comments on all this in a reply that briefly starts out with a discussion of Eric Voegelin but then turns to the main event. Strauss wants to know how anyone will want to live in this world where everyone thinks the same, feels the same, wants the same. A world in which anyone who thinks/feels/wants differently, as Nietzsche said, goes voluntarily to the madhouse. A world that as Reason is woven into it, Humanity is pushed out of it. His prescription is a return to the ancients, who, as the Hiero shows us, knew that philosophy both could not and should not be realized in time. Otherwise, Humanity will end up engulfed by its own artifacts. Or, as Ernst Juenger remarked, "History is the replacement of men by things.

Powerful and informative analysis of complex trends in 20th Century French philosophic thought. With our growing consensus on the limits of knowledge, language, and the 'human', this text situates and clarifies the value and influence of Hegel minus metaphysics and the richness of Nietzschean inquiry still possible given Heidegger's ultimate limit of the return of the Same.

If we recognize Lacan's human-as-barred-subject, our only 'sensible' project, given one's structure, is pursuit of a 'reasonable' libidinal economy. History as parallel with no enlightened EndState leave us with the same injunction for social action. But we continue to insist "Che Vuoi?" Outstanding scholarship and wonderfully referenced.

This book is filled with poetry and, if you give to it, it will give back to you.

Although this book is also useful for senior and families with young children, we use it to learn which areas in the national parks are accessible and were private vehicles are restricted. It also advises when special passes can be obtained.

Visitors to restricted areas of the parks must ride in busses, special provisions are often made for the disabled (usually requires a state diabled permit for your vehicle) allowing you to drive your private vehicle in these areas. This book gives you advance notice of when you need a special permit for this privilege. In some cases, the book has provided us with information that is not easily available from any other source. This makes the park much more accessible for the disabled.

The only reason this is not a 5 star book is that the book is 8 years old and does not cover the newer parks.

When you have a disability, traveling isn't easy. As the Disabilities Host on BellaOnline, I found this book to be very useful. It needs to be updated, but I think it is still beneficial and worth buying.

I found most of the essays a bit tedious to read, but that was what I expected from an appreciation of Freud. I picked this up for the Peter Kramer and Oliver Sacks writings, but all of the contributions were well written.

The Art Spiegelman contribution to this book is in comic book form, pp. 165-8. In tips on telling jokes, a current obsession with people who would like to be popular, but a plague for those people who think that they already are popular, Art illustrates a joke: "This guy think's he's a mirror so he goes to see a shrink." I'm not going to tell you the results. That would be too much like trying to read Mad magazine to my mother while she was ironing. Mark Twain was the guy who could be funnier, if Art quoted him right. "Everything human is pathetic." (p. 168)

For better or worse the "history of history" has become a major precoccupation for intellectual historians. Scholars such as Carl Schorske, Robert Darnton, Hayden White, and Rogier Chartier have contributed valuable insights into the ways in which we conceive history. Within this context, Roth's book is a simplistic attempt to summarize "the history of the history of history." His explications and interpretations are not only typical examples of academic hermeticism; they are also clunky and obvious. The attempt to present the writing of history as analogous to pschoanalysis suggests that the author has only the most superficial understanding of either discipline.

You would be well advised to skip this book and go to the sources already mentioned, as well as to such important historians as Carlo Ginzburg, Carlo Cippoli, Jacques Le Goff, Jackson Lears, Anson Rabinbach, Terry Castle, or any number of others. These scholars have come to their theoretical positions the old fashioned way--by undertaking original, primary research that led them to question their methods and assumptions--and for that reason have a vitality and engagement with the issues lacking here.