What do you think?
Rate this book
Methodical Realism: A Handbook for Beginning Realists
This short book is a work of one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers and historians of philosophy, Étienne Gilson. The book's title, taken from the first chapter, may sound esoteric but it reflects a common-sense outlook on the world, applied in a "methodical" way. That approach, known as realism, consists in emphasizing the fact that what is real precedes our concepts about it. In contrast to realism stands idealism, which refers to the philosophical outlook that begins with ideas and tries to move from them to things. Gilson shows how the common-sense notion of realism, though denied by many thinkers, is indispensible for a correct understanding of things--of what is and how we know what is. He shows the flaws of idealism and he critiques efforts to introduce elements of idealism into realist philosophy ("immediate realism"). At the same time, the author criticizes failures of certain realist philosophers--including Aristotle--to be consistent in their own principles and to begin from sound starting points. To these problems, Gilson traces medieval philosophy's failure in the realm of science, which led early modern scientific thinkers of the 17th century unnecessarily to reject even the best of medieval scholastic philosophy.
He concludes with "The Realist Beginner's Handbook," a summary of key points for thinking clearly about reality and about the knowledge of it.
He concludes with "The Realist Beginner's Handbook," a summary of key points for thinking clearly about reality and about the knowledge of it.
112 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1990
21 people are currently reading
262 people want to read
About the author
Étienne Gilson
234 books165 followersÉtienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
June 1, 2014
The single best book on reality available.
It demonstrates why idealism fails by asking questions to which there are there no answers, but also HOW idealism asks questions to which there is no reality.
This combined with Maritain's Introduction to Philosophy is a wonderful eye-opener to the world of Aquinas.
The essential aspect of this book is the chapter entitled "A Handbook for Beginning Realists", featuring 30 pithy aphorisms as to the nature of reality.
"...all idealist objections to the realist position are formulate in idealist terms. So it is hardly suprising that the idealist always wins. His questions invariably imply an idealist solution to problems. The realist therefore when invited to take part in discussions on what is not his own ground, should first of all accustom himself to saying no, and not imagine himself in difficulties because he is unable to answer questions which are in fact insoluble, but which for him do not arise." (aphorism 2).
All that is noble, good, and true about philosophy is brought out and highlighted in this wonderful book.
It demonstrates why idealism fails by asking questions to which there are there no answers, but also HOW idealism asks questions to which there is no reality.
This combined with Maritain's Introduction to Philosophy is a wonderful eye-opener to the world of Aquinas.
The essential aspect of this book is the chapter entitled "A Handbook for Beginning Realists", featuring 30 pithy aphorisms as to the nature of reality.
"...all idealist objections to the realist position are formulate in idealist terms. So it is hardly suprising that the idealist always wins. His questions invariably imply an idealist solution to problems. The realist therefore when invited to take part in discussions on what is not his own ground, should first of all accustom himself to saying no, and not imagine himself in difficulties because he is unable to answer questions which are in fact insoluble, but which for him do not arise." (aphorism 2).
All that is noble, good, and true about philosophy is brought out and highlighted in this wonderful book.
September 13, 2019
Incroyable présentation et défense du réalisme, très brève. Gilson a vraiment un don, il explique très bien.
Il montre en particulier que le problème de l'idéalisme c'est que bien qu'il soit très cohérent, si on commence à partir de la pensée pour aller à l'être (le réalisme est le contraire : aller de l'être à la pensée), c'est impossible, on reste bloqué dans la pensée. Le "Je suis" de Descartes qu'il prouve avec le cogito peut être un truc qui existe, mais peut-être bien seulement dans la pensée et non dans une réalité extérieure. C'est ça le problème. Le réalisme lui n'a pas besoin d'être déduit ou prouvé, c'est sa définition même. Du coup, Gilson montre pourquoi un réalisme médiat est incohérent (exemple : celui de l'école de Louvain, du Cardinal Mercier) car en doutant de la réalité, il fait la même chose que l'idéalisme et donc se condamne au même problème ou alors n'est pas clair du tout dans la définition de ses termes.
Il montre en particulier que le problème de l'idéalisme c'est que bien qu'il soit très cohérent, si on commence à partir de la pensée pour aller à l'être (le réalisme est le contraire : aller de l'être à la pensée), c'est impossible, on reste bloqué dans la pensée. Le "Je suis" de Descartes qu'il prouve avec le cogito peut être un truc qui existe, mais peut-être bien seulement dans la pensée et non dans une réalité extérieure. C'est ça le problème. Le réalisme lui n'a pas besoin d'être déduit ou prouvé, c'est sa définition même. Du coup, Gilson montre pourquoi un réalisme médiat est incohérent (exemple : celui de l'école de Louvain, du Cardinal Mercier) car en doutant de la réalité, il fait la même chose que l'idéalisme et donc se condamne au même problème ou alors n'est pas clair du tout dans la définition de ses termes.
November 12, 2025
Killer stuff. Very helpful and surprisingly funny.
April 17, 2024
Gilson distinguishes between realism and idealism. I’m not sure, but I think he’s using idealism in a slightly unique way, finding Descartes to be the father of modern idealism.
Idealism: proceeding from the subject’s idea of the object in order to infer the being of the object.
Realism: starting from the object’s existence and then deducing the manner in which that object is known (if one desires to).
Gilson laments the dominion epistemology possesses over the field of philosophy and seeks a return to metaphysics and ontology. He says that if we demand epistemology account for ontology (the idealist position), we will never move on to ontology. We must instead begin with reality and then construct epistemology along the way.
Cartesianism begins with ideas. Spinozism begins with God. Thomism begins with things.
Scholasticism failed scientifically because it made philosophy the ground of science. Scientism fails philosophically because it makes math and physics the ground of philosophy. But neo-scholasticism can do better by living up to its realism in a better fashion. This means letting the reality we encounter set the agenda for how it is to be known. Each domain is to be respected in the way it demands to be known.
Big takeaway: We cannot know how a thing is known until we know that thing.
Edit: Heard a joke from Kreeft that illustrates what Gilson is trying to say here. Descartes was seen walking home with a blind horse. The horse didn’t know the way, so Descartes had to get off and led the horse home. When he got there, someone stopped him and said he committed a logical fallacy. Descartes was confused. The man explained, “You put Descartes before the horse.”
The point is that the Cartesian error is to start with the thinking self and try to reach the object, which is impossible. Thomistic realism starts with the object and then inquires how that object is known.
Idealism: proceeding from the subject’s idea of the object in order to infer the being of the object.
Realism: starting from the object’s existence and then deducing the manner in which that object is known (if one desires to).
Gilson laments the dominion epistemology possesses over the field of philosophy and seeks a return to metaphysics and ontology. He says that if we demand epistemology account for ontology (the idealist position), we will never move on to ontology. We must instead begin with reality and then construct epistemology along the way.
Cartesianism begins with ideas. Spinozism begins with God. Thomism begins with things.
Scholasticism failed scientifically because it made philosophy the ground of science. Scientism fails philosophically because it makes math and physics the ground of philosophy. But neo-scholasticism can do better by living up to its realism in a better fashion. This means letting the reality we encounter set the agenda for how it is to be known. Each domain is to be respected in the way it demands to be known.
Big takeaway: We cannot know how a thing is known until we know that thing.
Edit: Heard a joke from Kreeft that illustrates what Gilson is trying to say here. Descartes was seen walking home with a blind horse. The horse didn’t know the way, so Descartes had to get off and led the horse home. When he got there, someone stopped him and said he committed a logical fallacy. Descartes was confused. The man explained, “You put Descartes before the horse.”
The point is that the Cartesian error is to start with the thinking self and try to reach the object, which is impossible. Thomistic realism starts with the object and then inquires how that object is known.
January 4, 2023
An excellent book defending classical realism, as opposed to idealism. Gilson shows his mastery over the sweep of philosophy, and especially Rene Descartes. Some essays weren’t quite as good as the others, but the last three were particularly spectacular. This book isn’t too accessible, and the word “handbook” and “beginning” are misnomers, but it’s definitely a worthwhile read.
September 27, 2023
A fiery collection of essays aimed at exposing Idealism (Descartes ‘I think, therefore I am’) as faulty and upholding Realism as the solution to our philosophical ills and metaphysical lack. The last three essays were especially good.
August 3, 2025
Descartes taught, “I think therefore I am.” That is starting from a thought and proceeding to being. That is thought ever since the enlightenment. Thought before that period concluded that we should start with being and proceed towards a recognition of thought. “Things are, therefore I am a thinker and a true knower of things.” This is the proper starting point for all realists or common sense thinkers, and especially Christians! There is no “problem of knowledge”. God, morality, and this world we apprehend just is!
May 27, 2018
In this book Étienne Gilson goes into detail about the difference of realism from idealism, the Thomistic argument of reality and the Cartesian. He jumps right in to the nitty gritty details making the small book very complex right from the beginning. It becomes a very slow read because the material needs full attention, and even if given one needs time to internalize it. For a while I kind of grasp what he writes about, but then at other times I lost it. More than a few times I had to read and then reread a sentence or paragraph a few times, not because it was bad but because it was so profound. The complexity increase when he brings in two variants of realism given by Noël and Mercier in addition to his own, making you constantly to have many variants in mind together with their argument in regards to the whole and the other arguments.
It seems the book could be slightly more accessible if the third chapter was moved to the beginning. This chapter gives a historical context and the background needed to understand the Cartesian argument and its impact.
Don’t be fooled to think that the word beginning in the subtitle of this book means that it is a easy read for beginners - far from it. I’m going to return to this book whenever I encounter idealism or struggle with the arguments for realism.
The last chapter is a kind of 30 point summary that is simply mindblowingly good.
It seems the book could be slightly more accessible if the third chapter was moved to the beginning. This chapter gives a historical context and the background needed to understand the Cartesian argument and its impact.
Don’t be fooled to think that the word beginning in the subtitle of this book means that it is a easy read for beginners - far from it. I’m going to return to this book whenever I encounter idealism or struggle with the arguments for realism.
The last chapter is a kind of 30 point summary that is simply mindblowingly good.
August 11, 2021
I think I'm going to include the last chapter of this book as one of my readings for Philosophy of Religion.
January 7, 2026
While titled "A Handbook for Beginning Realists", I would not recommend this book for someone who is entirely new to epistemology. I think quite a bit of background knowledge is being assumed regarding figures like Descartes, Kant, Cardinal Mercier, etc... That being said, the book is definitely worth reading as Gilson has plenty of valuable stuff to say regarding philosophical starting points, untethered/abstract vs. tethered/concrete system building (my verbiage not his), and why realists should avoid being roped into arguments undergirded and contextualized by non-realist presuppositions.
It is pretty fascinating that Gilson does not really offer a thorough going refutation of idealism so much as simply an alternative road. The running idea throughout the book can be summarized something along the lines of: you begin your philosophy either with Aristotle or Descartes, but once you make your choice... the conclusion becomes inevitable. As Gilson puts it, if you begin with Aristotle, you end up with Aristotle—as a realist. If you start with Descartes, however, you actually end up with Berkely or Kant—as an idealist. The reason for this is that the realist moves from things to concepts while the non-realist attempts to move from thought to things—the latter being an impossible task. According to Gilson, you are free to pick your starting point whichever way you like, but then you get your just philosophical desserts.
Gilson spends quite a bit of time expounding upon this idea in a few different directions. For one, he spends a significant amount of time critiquing attempts at formulating "critical realism" and explaining why they fail to arrive at realist conclusions with non-realist methods. Gilson also explains the shortcomings of a truly realist approach which seeks to appropriate and redefine Descartes' language in order to unsuccessfully try to bridge the gap in conversation with non-realists. Finally, he critiques the many shortcomings of non-realist starting points and system-building which often lead their adherent to absurd conclusions which run counter to their daily experience.
Having spent most of the book laying a foundation out of all of this background context, it is in the final portion of it that Gilson delivers the actual "handbook" part of the work. In this final chapter, Gilson systematically lays out rules for those who want to embark on the realist path to follow in order to avoid all sorts of idealist potholes. If what you're looking for from this portion is a beginning-to-end explanation of Thomistic philosophy of mind and epistemology, then you will not find that here. What you will find, however, is a lot of insightful commentary regarding the realist vs. idealist debate in epistemology—but one which you need some background knowledge to truly appreciate.
All in all, I think this a great book which I would recommend to someone who: 1. Has already read a contemporary overview introduction to epistemology, and 2. Is already acquainted with, at least, the basic outlines of Thomistic psychology and epistemology.
It is pretty fascinating that Gilson does not really offer a thorough going refutation of idealism so much as simply an alternative road. The running idea throughout the book can be summarized something along the lines of: you begin your philosophy either with Aristotle or Descartes, but once you make your choice... the conclusion becomes inevitable. As Gilson puts it, if you begin with Aristotle, you end up with Aristotle—as a realist. If you start with Descartes, however, you actually end up with Berkely or Kant—as an idealist. The reason for this is that the realist moves from things to concepts while the non-realist attempts to move from thought to things—the latter being an impossible task. According to Gilson, you are free to pick your starting point whichever way you like, but then you get your just philosophical desserts.
Gilson spends quite a bit of time expounding upon this idea in a few different directions. For one, he spends a significant amount of time critiquing attempts at formulating "critical realism" and explaining why they fail to arrive at realist conclusions with non-realist methods. Gilson also explains the shortcomings of a truly realist approach which seeks to appropriate and redefine Descartes' language in order to unsuccessfully try to bridge the gap in conversation with non-realists. Finally, he critiques the many shortcomings of non-realist starting points and system-building which often lead their adherent to absurd conclusions which run counter to their daily experience.
Having spent most of the book laying a foundation out of all of this background context, it is in the final portion of it that Gilson delivers the actual "handbook" part of the work. In this final chapter, Gilson systematically lays out rules for those who want to embark on the realist path to follow in order to avoid all sorts of idealist potholes. If what you're looking for from this portion is a beginning-to-end explanation of Thomistic philosophy of mind and epistemology, then you will not find that here. What you will find, however, is a lot of insightful commentary regarding the realist vs. idealist debate in epistemology—but one which you need some background knowledge to truly appreciate.
All in all, I think this a great book which I would recommend to someone who: 1. Has already read a contemporary overview introduction to epistemology, and 2. Is already acquainted with, at least, the basic outlines of Thomistic psychology and epistemology.
May 18, 2025
a re-iteration of classic Aristotelian-Thomistic realism, Gilson goes through the methodology of the realist position in metaphysics/philosophy by asserting that Descartes' main error was beginning philosophy with epistemology instead of metaphysics, that knowing in his eyes began with "I think" rather than "I know", which Gilson traced into the thought of fellow early modern thinker Hobbes, which separated man from his community and his society (refer to Ferdinand Tonnies book "Economy And Society" for the main contradistinction). Beginning with mathematics rather than physics as the groundwork of knowledge, Descartes essentially broke down the world into atomized units, to which Hobbes' theory of social contract could bring these units under governance (relating mathematics to politics here!), creating a struggle between the individual and the state (Alasdair McIntyre talks about how society and the individual are complimentary rather in competition), ending in the egoistic power grabs of Nietzsche and Stirner, to which all morals are historically contingent and there's nothing but material forces at play (also Marx, Darwin, and of course Stirner), eventually destroying idealism's advance dead in the water. Which is why Etienne Gilson is a Thomist and a realist. the position that there is a real existing world outside of human perception is a standard, that, any alteration to that stance had real world consequences.
We're still recovering.
I made a similar argument here regarding the erasure of freedom in causality on my blog here: https://adolfstalin.substack.com/p/fa...
We're still recovering.
I made a similar argument here regarding the erasure of freedom in causality on my blog here: https://adolfstalin.substack.com/p/fa...
May 17, 2018
How do you know that you exist? Gilson demonstrates that for idealists the answer is the cogito, "I think, therefore I am". Yet for realists, this question, which represents the "problem of knowledge", is a pseudo problem. In fact, any attempt to base one's philosophy on epistemology is doomed from the start. Thus Gilson encourages the realist not to fall prey to the idealist trap of starting with thought and then moving to being. Rather, as the realist position maintains, one must move from being to thought. Gilson's short little book is a great comparison between the positions of idealism and realism, while also tracing the differences between the medievals (Aquinas especially ) and the moderns (Descartes and Kant). The last chapter is probably the most helpful in terms of providing 30 short pithy explanations on the differences between the two positions. This book resembles Alasdair MacIntyre's brilliant essay "First Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophy Issues" which similarly sets out to argue that the Thomist/ Realist should never try to make epistemology first philosophy, but should instead leave metaphysics with that honor.
March 24, 2023
Of the various philosophical options on the table when it comes to metaphysics, realism is the only sane one to take. Materialism, pantheism, and idealism all have serious deficiencies, both when it comes to metaphysics, but also epistemology. They destroy any true knowledge of reality. Realism, in the classical Aristotelian and medieval Thomistic version, is the best philosophy to adopt because it is effectively just common sense. It provides a view of the world that makes sense of basic human intuition about the way things actually are. The Thomist historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson knew this well and his book is helpful in laying out the problems with the various others philosophies that try to grapple with reality, especially idealism. Gilson shows why the thought that began with Descartes and came to fruition with Kant is to be eschewed in favour of an intuition known by everyone--that reality is real and knowable. Though a short book, it packs a philosophical wallop. I suspect a number of people need to be hit over the head with this, to literally knock some common sense into them.
December 16, 2018
I am not sure why this book has been given the subtitle "a handbook for beginning realists". Almost half the book is criticism of a few other works that the reader won't know about if they are a beginner, so will lack understanding due to the lack of context. The second half of the book is a criticism of scholastics barking up the wrong tree in the middle ages and a criticism of modern positivists and idealists. This part was highly interesting, but there was not much guidance given for realists till the points made in the final section of the book. Overall, a good read, but I still feel betrayed by the subtitle.
October 13, 2023
4.5/5 fantastic introduction but it really helps if you know some of the arguments from philosophers like Kant Descartes especially and Aristotle and Aquinas. He does explain some things but he throws terms in there that are unknown to people not familiar with Catholic/Thomistic philosophy mainly ‘illation’. He’s very concise and the translation is good and I found myself laughing. It’s pretty readable though there were some sections I definitely needed to read over and words I had to look up but it was great.
March 26, 2021
As someone who dabbles in philosophy, I found this work to be quite a helpful and interesting walkthrough some various aspects of idealism and realism. Definitely some difficult parts as Gilson interacts with specific writers that I don't have familiarity with, though Gilson does give a decent enough summary that you understand the issues involved. The last 3 chapters were especially good.
September 1, 2025
I wish I had read this book 30 years ago. Besides being a short how-to guide to metaphysical realism, it is also a very short analysis of the problems of modern philosophy. Highly recommend to anyone beginning to study metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy, or modern philosophy.
April 1, 2019
Not entirely sure I agree with everything here. But he deff makes some very strong arguments for realism (and against idealism.) Plus, Gilson has such a way with words!
July 28, 2024
Dense read, and I can’t say I understood everything! 😂 But chapters 4 and 5 on the realist method contra idealism were by themselves well worth the price of the book.
November 19, 2023
Outstanding depth and understanding of realism and its main opposition (nominalism, or idealism). Although written quite a while ago, the truth of the arguments and the application for life is still true and much needed—a short but very worthy introduction to the topic and method of realism.
April 17, 2014
Once again this book is truly a beginners book, yet even though it is considered a beginners book it is still an involving read. I think however, that the reader will appreciate the last chapter of the book the most as it gives point-by-point explanation of the Nature of the Realist as opposed to the Idealist. This book needs to be read first before any other book written by the same author, especially when her talks on the philosophical investigation into knowledge of reality.
April 19, 2016
Solid, meaty, and of course real
E. Gilson clarifies and criticicizesphilosophical idealism and its practical and logical inconsistencies) following Descartes, which has led to confusion regarding knowledge, mind, thought, the good (misconstrued as "values"): and explains how realism is hardly as naive as it has naively been thought to be.
E. Gilson clarifies and criticicizesphilosophical idealism and its practical and logical inconsistencies) following Descartes, which has led to confusion regarding knowledge, mind, thought, the good (misconstrued as "values"): and explains how realism is hardly as naive as it has naively been thought to be.
January 15, 2014
Great book. So simple but so needed. Gilson is a master and this is truly a gem of a book. I probably would have given this five stars except the translation was clunky.
February 9, 2015
I really enjoyed this book, though I have to admit I failed to follow a lot of it. I intend to re-read it soon, and will hopefully follow with a more insightful review.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews