Robert Wolff's The Ideal of the University is a very interesting and stimulating book. He proposes an ideal model of undergraduate education from the perspective of a socialist, philosopher, and educator. The interesting thing about his book is not only his super-creative and somewhat crazy ideas, but also how he honestly presents his ideas and responds to the anticipated questions and concerns over his arguments. Several times I found myself questioning his arguments and then in the next paragraph or two he would respond to my questions. I do not necessarily agree with his points, but I found this "conversation" very thought provoking and interesting.

Robert Wolff confronts Marx's most demanding writing, the development of the value form in the first chapter of Capital, that even the most serious commentators shy away from. But Wolff's real revelation is that Marx's writing can be fun. Wolff turns the dialectic into a Jewish joke 'Mrs Feinshmeck's blintzes', to help the Germanic medicine down. For all that, Wolff's treatment is up there with the most serious exegetes of Marxism. Most pointedly Wolff explains that Marx's style is not contradictory in itself, but an attempt to capture the essence of a contradictory world

Philosophy in general is a necessary tool to understand life and the purpose of it. This book takes a collection of the works that most greatly aid in this purpose to form a concauction of ideas that allow for greater understanding of philosophers and how they can and will relate to every person's life. The preface by Wolff is excellent and allows readers with a less comprehensive understanding of philosophy to still recieve valuble information, or readers with a thorough understanding to see another interpretation of these amazing works of literature.

This is the philosophy textbook that we're using in my Philosophy 101 class... and it's driving me nuts. The author finds a 'favorite philosopher' for each chapter, which is completely annoying if you wish to have any opinion of your own about western philosophy. The information might be complete, but it's extremely difficult trying to cut through the author's views in order to get to that information. The completely unsubtle partiality makes it difficult to learn anything concrete from this book.

Wolff's perennial textbook, now in its eighth edition, has faults. This is a given for any book or other work in the print medium, and, for that matter, for any human artifact. Nevertheless, after teaching philosophy for thirty-six years using everything from classic sources to newspapers to novels as texts, I have settled on Wolff's About Philosophy as the best means for introducting the most diverse of all academic disciplines.
Naturally, the book reflects the author's interests and preferences, although these are never presented as truths above debate. In fact, Wolff reveals his willingness to revise his own traditional, Western preferences for rationality-based theoretical constructs devised (virtually solely) by those of the male gender. Objectivity, too, comes up for careful scrutiny and, ultimately, rejection as an appropriate property of an acceptable philosophical theory.
In the end, About Philosophy is both a highly personal, and yet, a highly accurate documentation of 2500 years of philosophical speculation and research. Its faults may include that, in spite of its thoroughness and clarity, it does not summarize the views of every philosopher and movement in the Western tradition. No volume, introductory or not, could accomplish this, but the ideas selected by Wolff are clearly among the
germinal springboards for the entirety of Western Civilization.

I give such a high rating to cancel out the overly critical opinions of the two other reviews. This book is fine introduction to Western Philosophy with all of the major topics discussed in detail in a way that is very approachable to the beginner with good citations of the major work of each philosopher where appropriate. The others reviewing might suggest their own idea for a text book since they understand so much better than the auther the proper way to teach philosophy to the beginner.

This book, at 80 pages, had me really excited at the halfway point. HIs critiques of the existing systems of government- especially direct, representitive, and majoritarian democracy are deft and well formulated. I figured that as the author had presented his case against the state pretty well by page 40, he'd have a great affirmitive case for anarchism.

WRONG!! There was no case. Once he'd laid down his anti-government case, he simply repeated most of what he'd wrote one more time. Even the last sub-chapter 'Utopian Glimpses of a World Without States" didn't attempt anything. That in mind, the books title is not only misleading, it is a fabrication. AS there is no defences of anarchism here, it might best be called 'Critiques of the Idea of Government."

Well, the two stars I gave it were for amazing clarity in writing. This book, under a worse writer, could've easily been two hundred or more pages but Wolff keeps it short and energetic. Also, his critiques of the state (especially on voting procedure and inadequacies in district-representation) were great.
To Close, I must mention that there are many books similar to this one that are far superior to this one. For a great deffense of anarchism (favoring the market) read Randy Barnett's "Structure of Liberty." For a good defense of anarchism (favoring no market) read Proudhon's "What is Property" and for a book questioning the legitamacy of the state coming to a minarchist- libertarian- conclusion, the true classic is Robert Nozick's "Anarch, State and Utopia."

...not a practical argument for anarchism; which is precisely why (as a reviewer below noted) there are no specifics presented. Indeed, Wolff does not seem to even think anarchism *is* practical.

The title is misleading, as Wolff's essay is not so much apologia for anarchist ideas about social structures, it is in fact an exploration of the apparent paradox between the authority of the state and the moral autonomy of the individual. After running through the arguments for various kinds of representative and direct democracy, Wolff concludes that the only form of government which is morally acceptable (that is, which does not subvert moral autonomy) is 'unanimous direct democracy', which for obvious reasons is not a practical form of government. Wolff concludes that, from the perspective of moral philosophy, anarchism is the only acceptable social arrangement.

Wolff's treatment of the subject was rather illuminating for me, it finally revealed to me why political scientists as a whole do not regard anarchism as an ideology; it is instead considered a moral stance independent of political and economic issues, despite what some people might assert.

I've been thinking a little bit about his arguments, and they all seem sound. But I'm inclined to agree with Wolff's sentiments that even if the authority of the state truly cannot be reconciled with moral autonomy, the alternative is not practical. I was briefly considering pursuing the line of argument that societies as a whole can possess moral autonomy, and that a 'social moral autonomy' would outweigh the individual's moral autonomy. The obvious problem with this argument, though, is that if you accept it, it can make any form of government acceptable.

First, a disclaimer: this book is not about how some form of anarchism might operate. It is purely theoretical, arguing for "philosophical anarchism" based on the imperitive of not undermining personal autonomy. So don't expect it to defend anarchists in the Spanish Civil War or something. That's not what it is about.

But, the book is excellent. I am no anarchist, but the arguments set forth here are completely convincing. If we value autonomy--and almost everyone claims they do--then these are the necessary conclusions. Wolff's comments on majoritarianism vigorously ring the bell of indisputable truth. This is not what you learned in high school government class.

The book is quite short. The preface is a fun read, as Wolff talks about the how the book came into being, but once the first chapter starts, he is all business. But though it deals almost exclusively with philosophical ideas, it had no problem keeping my attention. A short 80 pages has given me a whole new understanding of the justifcation of government. Consider my philosophical cobwebs knocked out.