What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Think about the Great Ideas: From the Great Books of Western Civilization
Philosophy of everybody's business. As human beings, we all have the ability, and even the proclivity, to philosophize. We all engage in philosphical thought in the course of our daily live. What is philosophy? Why is it important? The importance of philosophy can be summed up in two words: Great Ideas. Great Ideas are the ideas that have been captured and developed in what are often called the Great Books of Western Civilization. They are common concepts that are a part of everyone's vocabulary and ordinary conversation and important, basic ideas that we think about throughout our lives - as children, adolescents and adults. What does it mean to be Good? How do we decide the Right thing to do? What is Love? The same question may appear to have different answers; the journey through the conflicting answers to a resolution is called philosophy. The Great Ideas are Art, Beauty, Change, Democracy, Emotion, Freedom, God, Good and Evil, Government, Justice, Labour, Language, Law, Learning, Love, Man, Opinion, Philosophy, Progress, Punishment, Truth, and War and Peace. Although everyone has a basic grasp of these Great Ideas, not everyone understands them as well as he or she could or should. In "How to Think About the Great Ideas", renowned philosopher Mortimer J. Adler guides readers to an understanding of these fundamental ideas and their practical applications to our daily lives. Not only does he clarify what the Great Ideas are, he helps readers understand the immediate role/application and importance of these ideas in our lives. These essays are based on the famous television lecture series by Mortimer Adler.
600 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2000
181 people are currently reading
2102 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
592 books1,042 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
February 5, 2017
The more I dwell on deciding an accurate way to review this book it becomes apparent that I have biases that made this particular selection a very taxing read. From the beginning, one of my first impressions was how defectively it was written and edited. It is not until the last part of the book that the reason for this is explained as the editors made a decision to keep the dialogue intact, as much as possible, from the original transcripts of the television program.
Dr. Mortimer Adler, being the author of over 60 books, should have been cognizant of how inadequately this translated into written form. If we are to have a dialogue about the “Great Ideas” from “Great Books” the least one could expect is a tightly written book about this. My disappointment is obvious. I had to incessantly convince myself to look beyond this problem and accept what value I could from the way the dialogue was offered.
Another tremendous disappointment confronted me in the superficiality of the ideas conversed. The “Ideas” were more or less defined, in a vague way, accompanied by short quotes (many out of context) by some of the implied great thinkers throughout history. Nevertheless, the ideas, themselves, were so scarce expounded upon that an easier way to describe some of the chapters is as follows:
My (Dr. Adler’s) definition of “x”. What so and so (Aristotle seems to be a favorite, but also, Thomas Aquinas) had to say about “x”. No here is what I think, and I think that is the way you should think about “x”. Of course, this is a little coarse. There are a few of the ideas that I was quite impressed with the discussion and with the paraphrasing of some of the great thinkers. The two that stand out in my mind were the discussion on “progress,” accompanied by the paraphrasing of G.W.F. Hegel, Herbert Spencer, and Arnold Toynbee, and the conversation about Art. Although somewhat inconclusive and confusing, Dr. Adler did seem to go out of his way to properly explain the intricacies of these subjects.
Moreover, I must admit, much like another reviewer, my extreme befuddlement with Dr. Adler’s positions on evolution and religion. On evolution, Dr. Adler’s abuse of logical reasoning and his willingness to subvert the rules of argumentation were excruciatingly painful to read. The arguments towards the end, about religion, were equally perplexing. It was almost as if Dr. Adler was afraid to state his real opinion and instead sided with ambiguity so as not to upset the reading (viewing) audience. A sincere disappointment was my only emotion. If one was to simply read the chapters on the ideas of Truth (and opinion), one would see that Dr. Adler has done exactly what he seemed to understand very well was wrong. Why do this? Why be untrue? It still boggles my mind and I just can’t get past these questions.
The last part that was extremely disappointing was the continual use of masculine pronouns. Of course, at the end, the claim is made that this was a product of the time. Yet, if one cares to read very closely, in one of the chapters Dr. Adler makes it clear that he believes women are inferior to men. In fact, he says that a women’s job is to obey her husband. Seriously, look it up, he does say this. So again, he undermines his own understanding of the great ideas (like “equality”) with miscellaneously errant comments and reasoning that make no sense.
Here is the bottom line. If you want to get an introduction to some of the great ideas throughout Western History, then this book will probably provide that. If you want to have a starting point to think about the great ideas, then this book is for you. However, if you already have a decent base of understanding of the great ideas, if you are somewhat knowledgeable of these ideas, then this book should frustrate you and cause you to curse anyone who would claim this to be a great work of literature.
January 4, 2013
A great book that goes into some detail about how to consider the main ideas of the Western tradition. The author is obviously well-read and proposes interesting arguments. He can be rational and thorough, but sometimes comes off as a tad conservative. Also, the author clearly has a religious bias that inserts itself in the discussion and renders some conclusions not so scientific.
For instance, the discussion on evolutionary theory is weak: evolution does not state that an intermediary species must exist, simply that two species always have a common ancestor. A more modern view of evolution theory seems to make obsolete most of the arguments presented in the chapter on man. The idea that a god is needed to explain the human mind is weak.
In my opinion, the author exhibits a few biases:
- religious: things are explained in a way that allows a final leap of faith.
- authority: too much reverence is paid to authors of the past, particularly Aristotle.
- linguistic: discussions are often restricted to linguistic meanings, which is a good start but I think often incomplete.
- conformity: individuals should all learn from a canon of books (e.g. the Great Books) and discuss the same ideas. This bias is a hidden assumption to support the idea that children should be liberally educated, or to support the idea that children need to be educated through the ironing out of their weaknesses.
- anthropocentrism: the author has no qualms in stating that humans are truly special as opposed to animals or other things. Also he often assumes that what is natural is good.
Certainly, this book can be the spark for many interesting conversations.
Here are some reading notes. My full notes are published here.
# Truth
- skepticism: no truth
- relativism: truth changes depending on the thinker or the era
- objectivism: truth is always the same (absolute)
- pragmatism: truth leads to things that work (practical applications)
Definition of truth: correspondence between the mind and reality
See William James's book: The Meaning of Truth
How do you tell if something is true or not?
- it does not contain contradictions
- it follows from basic principles or self-obvious observations
# Opinion
- Knowledge is known and not doubted.
- Opinion is thought and can be doubted.
- It is possible to opine on a matter that is knowledge to someone else.
- Teachers might hand out right opinions to their pupils, but giving them knowledge is better. If a pupil knows something because that pupil trusts his or her teacher, the pupil might have a right opinion but only the teacher truly knows.
- Skeptics hold that most things are just matters of opinion and all opinions are valid.
- Sociological skepticism is a term that seems to mean similar things as moral relativism (without the negative connotation perhaps).
- There is a statement that some moral rules are absolute though the only example given is that murder is wrong.
The idea that religious ideas involve a leap of faith that puts faith in-between knowledge and opinion as a third category is very weak. Religion, as well as some political views, is an opinion, as there is no possible demonstration of proof, no complete consensus, and reasonable people can disagree. Adler would say that religion is also knowledge, as people holding religious beliefs are convinced of the existence of god and do not doubt. But this relies on a weak definition of knowledge as something that we do not doubt. No matter how little we doubt of something, an opinion still remains an opinion. We cannot transform an opinion into knowledge by convincing ourselves thoroughly.
## Politics and Majority Rule
In order to take action on matters of opinion, we need some authority that we are willing to listen to. The only alternative to this free subjugation is the use of force which is anathema to freedom. Majority rule is the best way to remain free.
Three ways to settle political matters of opinion:
- force
- authority of one person or group
- majority rule
Some quotes are presented to make the case for majority rule but the case is weakly made.
# Man
The questions of the origin of humans and human nature are linked.
A difference in degrees allows for intermediate forms: there will always be a line that is of intermediate length between two lines of different length.
A difference in kind does not allow intermediate forms.
Darwin argued that humans differed from animals only in a matter of degrees.
Adler argues that humans differ in kind. Only humans do these three things:
- make art
- think discursively
- associate politically
Adler then implies that these differences are enough to make humans the only rational beings and that this is a difference in kind. Adler then goes on to say that the human body might be different in degrees to that of animals, but that the human mind is different in kind and thus a better explanation than evolution must be found to explain human rationality. This argument is very weak. For instance, we could state that there is a difference in kind between plants and animals, but we do not need to require a second explanation (e.g. God) to explain the mobility of animals. The theory of evolution is enough.
Here's a useful quote to understand Adler's point of view about justice:
> Justice requires us to treat equals equally and unequals unequally. And when the
unequals are regarded as unequal in kind because one is a superior kind and the
other is an inferior kind, justice requires us to treat that kind of inequality different
from the inequality which is merely an inequality in degree. Now I say that if man
is not superior in kind to other animals, then the rules of justice in terms of which
we treat men one way and animals another way would all be wrong. We would have
to revise all our standards in the treatment of humans and animals.
I think we \_should\_ revise these standards. Exploitation of animals is less and less acceptable to modern society.
Towards the end of the chapter, Adler mentions that Darwin and the Judaic religions cannot be both right; one has to choose between one's religious views and Darwin's explanation of the nature of man. That point is not coherent with the rest of the chapter as Adler argued that the human body could be explained by Darwin's explanation, just not the human mind. Reconciling a religious view with Darwin's view is simple: invoke Darwin for the origin of humans and God for the origin of the human mind. This point of view would be a modern point of view that accepts partial explanations from both Darwin and religion.
In any case, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about religion and pitting one against the other is not so pertinent. Inserting God as the cause of human exceptionalism is a leap of faith—the theory of evolution does not contradict that leap.
# Love
Two views on love:
- love is born of desire, it is erotic or carnal
- love can be that but also different, as in parent-child love or Christian love
Three kinds of love:
- sexual love
- friendship
- charitable love (or divine love)
Aristotle's associations:
- business relationships: based on utility
- friendship and couple relationships: based on pleasure
- excellence/mutual relationships: based on admiration
Aristotle maintained that true love was only that third association.
All love seems to imply benevolent impulses.
Both love and justice involve goodwill. But justice can be seen as a negative relationship. It involves reward and punishment—paying back debts. Love only involves giving—it is a positive relationship. Love and justice are both needed if people are to cooperate.
Adler's definition of love as pure goodwill towards the other rubs against a more psychological definition of love as the combination of three things: intimacy, infatuation, and purpose. According to that combination, an unrequited love lacks purpose and will cease to be at some point.
Adler lists the three wishes of love:
1. benefit the other
2. be requited
3. close union
Adler goes on to say that love is a deep need of human nature. This feels like a bold statement but he does not support it further.
For Freud, true love happens when two beings suppress or let go of their sexual instincts and leave room for tenderness. This somewhat joins with Aristotle's view on love where only tenderness is accepted as true love.
Adler says sexual love happens when sex becomes a way towards a greater union (purpose). He also says something a bit strange about procreation being the main driver of sex but this point is not well explained, and flies in the face of common sense.
Adler speaks of sex without love in these terms:
> .. like lust, like animal desire. In fact, this is the very opposite of love because it's selfish, because it's entirely acquisitive and worse than that, it's often quite cruel.
In sexual love, is the sexual desire leading to love? Or is love leading to the sexual desire? Adler points out that on this point, Aristotle and Freud disagree, and he adds that if love leads to sex, the relationship will likely be more stable.
## Bad Loves
The Christian tradition teaches about three "bad loves":
- the love of money
- the love of one's pride
- romantic love
Romantic love sounds good but in that context, it is the love of another human being as if they were divine, which displaces god from the equation.
Freud lists similar "bad loves":
- love of money
- neuroticism (narcissism)
- adolescent overestimation (or idealization of a sexual object)
According to Freud, to be a healthy person in love, one must not exhibit any of these three bad loves.
It is unclear to me why love of money (avarice) is spoken of here as a love. If we allow that, why not allow love of food (gluttony) or other similar excesses?
Adler arrives at these three bad loves by stating that one should only love that which is loveable (persons or god) in the appropriate amount. In other words, Adler says one should love God the most, a partner very much, other people a lot, and other things less.
# Good and Evil
The good can be:
- a product
- the just
- the right
Is the good what we desire or is what we desire the good? Hedonism says the good is what we desire, that there is no difference between the apparent good and the actual good.
Another view is that the good and the evil are objective notions and we could evaluate our desires based on how closely they relate to the objective notions of good and evil.
The Greek philosophers would define the objective good for everyone but more modern philosophers like Locke disagree and say that happiness is different things to different people.
Adler states four classes of goods:
- external goods (wealth)
- bodily goods (health)
- social goods (friendship)
- moral goods (knowledge/wisdom)
In this categorization, happiness depends on a basic satisfaction of the first three categories, and on a deep satisfaction of the fourth.
Stoics argue that these goods are neither good nor evil. That the only good is a person's goodwill. A dutiful being is good, everything else is unimportant. Kant said: "It is not right for men to seek happiness or to wish to be happy, rather they should conduct their lives that they deserve to be happy."
# Freedom
Three kinds:
- political or economic freedom
- psychological freedom (free will)
- moral freedom (integrated personality/not neurotic)
The first of these freedoms will be discussed.
Johnathan Edwards says that people may not be free to control their wishes but they might still be free to execute on their wishes. And that this shall be enough to constitute freedom.
Freedom can negative, as free from coercion, and positive, as in free to act. Freedom is being able to act, as opposed to being acted upon.
## Some Questions About Freedom
Can animals or things like stones also be free? Hobbes says yes, a rock is free from rolling down the hill if nothing prevents it. Others say no, humans are special in having consciousness and a desire for self-determination.
Is coercion only physical or is the instillation of fear also coercion? Hobbes again says that coercion is only physical. Others say no, fear or immaterial coercion does exist. Removing the means is a form of that, e.g. when someone takes away my food, I am not free to eat it.
Do alternatives need to exist in order for us to be free? Is a man content to sit in a prison cell free? He is not being coerced, but he could not escape even if he wanted to. Hobbes says the man is free, Locke says he is not.
Is success important to freedom? Is the power to achieve success important for one to be free?
## Law And Freedom
The Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill, argue that any law is a coercion on freedom. The more laws, the less freedom. Others argue than a person is not coerced by law. Rather, laws can be decided on democratically, and the people are still free if they participated in the enactment of the law. According to this view, a consensual coercion can still be talked about as freedom. William Penn, Rousseau, Locke and Kant all are proponents of this view. Locke says: "For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be where there is no law." According to this view, only unjust laws count as coercion.
# Learning
Everything that can be taught was once learned through discovery.
All learning is active. Which can involve practical activity, but it should mostly involve thinking.
Adler says teachers should decide what needs to be taught, and then instill motivation and interest in the pupils. Teaching should not stem from the initial interests of the pupils.
Adler sets up this argument that teaching must revolve around a child's weaknesses. Teaching is then a tool to round up the pupil, not to encourage the child's talents. This view is coherent with the imposition of a canon for reading, or of a canon of Great Ideas. This is not supported strongly in the text but it rubs against a more modern view of education as a way to help the children to fulfillment.
Learning happens or should happen for a whole lifetime. Adult learning is necessary. The purpose for the schooling of children is to learn how to learn.
We are never too old to learn, we are sometimes too young to learn.
# Reading a Book
We can read for information, or read for enlightenment. Enlightenment is much harder and requires active reading.
We should read a book three times (or perhaps more realistically three ways).
## First Reading
First, answer the four questions:
- Classify the book
- Summarize the book
- How does each part relate to the other parts?
- What is the question or problem the author is trying to solve?
## Second Reading
- Interpret the basic words
- What sentences state the main propositions?
- What is the argument?
- Which problems did the author solve and which did the author not solve?
## Third Reading
- Criticize the text
- Engage in a conversation with the author
- Fill the gaps in the arguments
# Talk
To have a conversation where the goal is learning, there are three requisites:
- the discussion cannot be about facts. Facts are looked up, not discussed.
- the avowed goal of the conversation must be learning. Winning the argument should not be the goal.
- good listening skills to make the back and forth relevant
## The Ten Rules of Conversation
1. pick the right time and location
2. pick the right people
3. selection the issue of conversation and stick to it
4. don't take assumptions for granted
5. avoid fallacies
6. don't agree or disagree until you understand someone's point
7. state your disagreement plainly and specifically:
- by bringing up new facts
- by casting doubt on some facts
- by pointing to a mistake in argumentation
- by carrying the argument further to complete the thought
8. keep emotions out of the conversation
9. catch yourself or the other person getting angry
10. if emotions do come up, beware of the dangers
I think rule #6, #9 and #10 could be omitted for the sake of simplicity.
# Justice
It's a lot easier to say what justice is than what is just in a particular case.
Three ways to define justice:
- Equality: treat equals equally, and unequals unequally
- Property: giving people what belongs to them; paying debt; not stealing
- Law: abide laws; respect community
Aristotle discussed two kinds of justice: the special and the general. The special justice has to do with giving each one their due. The general justice was more about being virtuous and working for the common good.
There is also a notion of conventional justice. A just person will drive on the appropriate side of the road, but driving on the other side is only unjust at the point where the law is enacted. Before the convention is decided on, the just or unjust side of the road to drive on does not exist. This discussion feels a bit stilted, probably because the discussion is based more in linguistics than in reality.
So we make laws and we think they are just. And the just person will abide by these laws. But how do we make just laws in the first place? Is there a natural justice? Some argue that a person has unalienable rights and that just laws will protect these rights. Others like Hobbes and Spinoza argue that law is constructed by governments only and therefore what is just or unjust will depend on the code of law of the particular polity we are looking at. In other words, might makes right.
# Punishment
Punishment can be about retribution (Kant/Hegel) or prevention (Rousseau/Hobbes/Utilitarians).
The prevention side of the argument states that it might make sense to have the thief reimburse the victim, but in other cases the punishment is mere vengeance. For instance, the punishment of a murderer does not help the murder victim. Perhaps some form of punishment can be helpful as a deterrent but otherwise the punishment should only serve as prevention. The punishment should fit the criminal, not the crime.
So it looks like punishment serves not two but three purposes: retribution, reformation and deterrence. Reasonable people will disagree on which is the most important and by how much.
# Work
Adler points out that a life, in the pre-industrial era, can be divided between work and sleep. Now life can be divided between work, play, leisure, rest and sleep.
Adler defines play as uncompensated, as opposed to work. And he defines rest in the same sense as the religious sense for a day of rest, the sabbath.
The whole argument here is a bit circular as Adler defines the five divisions of life and then goes on to explain and define each one. The point is muddled.
Leisure is more important than work. We work for leisure. Leisure is inherently beneficial. Play is not. Rest is, only in the sense that it prepares for more of work or leisure.
... see complete review here.
For instance, the discussion on evolutionary theory is weak: evolution does not state that an intermediary species must exist, simply that two species always have a common ancestor. A more modern view of evolution theory seems to make obsolete most of the arguments presented in the chapter on man. The idea that a god is needed to explain the human mind is weak.
In my opinion, the author exhibits a few biases:
- religious: things are explained in a way that allows a final leap of faith.
- authority: too much reverence is paid to authors of the past, particularly Aristotle.
- linguistic: discussions are often restricted to linguistic meanings, which is a good start but I think often incomplete.
- conformity: individuals should all learn from a canon of books (e.g. the Great Books) and discuss the same ideas. This bias is a hidden assumption to support the idea that children should be liberally educated, or to support the idea that children need to be educated through the ironing out of their weaknesses.
- anthropocentrism: the author has no qualms in stating that humans are truly special as opposed to animals or other things. Also he often assumes that what is natural is good.
Certainly, this book can be the spark for many interesting conversations.
Here are some reading notes. My full notes are published here.
# Truth
- skepticism: no truth
- relativism: truth changes depending on the thinker or the era
- objectivism: truth is always the same (absolute)
- pragmatism: truth leads to things that work (practical applications)
Definition of truth: correspondence between the mind and reality
See William James's book: The Meaning of Truth
How do you tell if something is true or not?
- it does not contain contradictions
- it follows from basic principles or self-obvious observations
# Opinion
- Knowledge is known and not doubted.
- Opinion is thought and can be doubted.
- It is possible to opine on a matter that is knowledge to someone else.
- Teachers might hand out right opinions to their pupils, but giving them knowledge is better. If a pupil knows something because that pupil trusts his or her teacher, the pupil might have a right opinion but only the teacher truly knows.
- Skeptics hold that most things are just matters of opinion and all opinions are valid.
- Sociological skepticism is a term that seems to mean similar things as moral relativism (without the negative connotation perhaps).
- There is a statement that some moral rules are absolute though the only example given is that murder is wrong.
The idea that religious ideas involve a leap of faith that puts faith in-between knowledge and opinion as a third category is very weak. Religion, as well as some political views, is an opinion, as there is no possible demonstration of proof, no complete consensus, and reasonable people can disagree. Adler would say that religion is also knowledge, as people holding religious beliefs are convinced of the existence of god and do not doubt. But this relies on a weak definition of knowledge as something that we do not doubt. No matter how little we doubt of something, an opinion still remains an opinion. We cannot transform an opinion into knowledge by convincing ourselves thoroughly.
## Politics and Majority Rule
In order to take action on matters of opinion, we need some authority that we are willing to listen to. The only alternative to this free subjugation is the use of force which is anathema to freedom. Majority rule is the best way to remain free.
Three ways to settle political matters of opinion:
- force
- authority of one person or group
- majority rule
Some quotes are presented to make the case for majority rule but the case is weakly made.
# Man
The questions of the origin of humans and human nature are linked.
A difference in degrees allows for intermediate forms: there will always be a line that is of intermediate length between two lines of different length.
A difference in kind does not allow intermediate forms.
Darwin argued that humans differed from animals only in a matter of degrees.
Adler argues that humans differ in kind. Only humans do these three things:
- make art
- think discursively
- associate politically
Adler then implies that these differences are enough to make humans the only rational beings and that this is a difference in kind. Adler then goes on to say that the human body might be different in degrees to that of animals, but that the human mind is different in kind and thus a better explanation than evolution must be found to explain human rationality. This argument is very weak. For instance, we could state that there is a difference in kind between plants and animals, but we do not need to require a second explanation (e.g. God) to explain the mobility of animals. The theory of evolution is enough.
Here's a useful quote to understand Adler's point of view about justice:
> Justice requires us to treat equals equally and unequals unequally. And when the
unequals are regarded as unequal in kind because one is a superior kind and the
other is an inferior kind, justice requires us to treat that kind of inequality different
from the inequality which is merely an inequality in degree. Now I say that if man
is not superior in kind to other animals, then the rules of justice in terms of which
we treat men one way and animals another way would all be wrong. We would have
to revise all our standards in the treatment of humans and animals.
I think we \_should\_ revise these standards. Exploitation of animals is less and less acceptable to modern society.
Towards the end of the chapter, Adler mentions that Darwin and the Judaic religions cannot be both right; one has to choose between one's religious views and Darwin's explanation of the nature of man. That point is not coherent with the rest of the chapter as Adler argued that the human body could be explained by Darwin's explanation, just not the human mind. Reconciling a religious view with Darwin's view is simple: invoke Darwin for the origin of humans and God for the origin of the human mind. This point of view would be a modern point of view that accepts partial explanations from both Darwin and religion.
In any case, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about religion and pitting one against the other is not so pertinent. Inserting God as the cause of human exceptionalism is a leap of faith—the theory of evolution does not contradict that leap.
# Love
Two views on love:
- love is born of desire, it is erotic or carnal
- love can be that but also different, as in parent-child love or Christian love
Three kinds of love:
- sexual love
- friendship
- charitable love (or divine love)
Aristotle's associations:
- business relationships: based on utility
- friendship and couple relationships: based on pleasure
- excellence/mutual relationships: based on admiration
Aristotle maintained that true love was only that third association.
All love seems to imply benevolent impulses.
Both love and justice involve goodwill. But justice can be seen as a negative relationship. It involves reward and punishment—paying back debts. Love only involves giving—it is a positive relationship. Love and justice are both needed if people are to cooperate.
Adler's definition of love as pure goodwill towards the other rubs against a more psychological definition of love as the combination of three things: intimacy, infatuation, and purpose. According to that combination, an unrequited love lacks purpose and will cease to be at some point.
Adler lists the three wishes of love:
1. benefit the other
2. be requited
3. close union
Adler goes on to say that love is a deep need of human nature. This feels like a bold statement but he does not support it further.
For Freud, true love happens when two beings suppress or let go of their sexual instincts and leave room for tenderness. This somewhat joins with Aristotle's view on love where only tenderness is accepted as true love.
Adler says sexual love happens when sex becomes a way towards a greater union (purpose). He also says something a bit strange about procreation being the main driver of sex but this point is not well explained, and flies in the face of common sense.
Adler speaks of sex without love in these terms:
> .. like lust, like animal desire. In fact, this is the very opposite of love because it's selfish, because it's entirely acquisitive and worse than that, it's often quite cruel.
In sexual love, is the sexual desire leading to love? Or is love leading to the sexual desire? Adler points out that on this point, Aristotle and Freud disagree, and he adds that if love leads to sex, the relationship will likely be more stable.
## Bad Loves
The Christian tradition teaches about three "bad loves":
- the love of money
- the love of one's pride
- romantic love
Romantic love sounds good but in that context, it is the love of another human being as if they were divine, which displaces god from the equation.
Freud lists similar "bad loves":
- love of money
- neuroticism (narcissism)
- adolescent overestimation (or idealization of a sexual object)
According to Freud, to be a healthy person in love, one must not exhibit any of these three bad loves.
It is unclear to me why love of money (avarice) is spoken of here as a love. If we allow that, why not allow love of food (gluttony) or other similar excesses?
Adler arrives at these three bad loves by stating that one should only love that which is loveable (persons or god) in the appropriate amount. In other words, Adler says one should love God the most, a partner very much, other people a lot, and other things less.
# Good and Evil
The good can be:
- a product
- the just
- the right
Is the good what we desire or is what we desire the good? Hedonism says the good is what we desire, that there is no difference between the apparent good and the actual good.
Another view is that the good and the evil are objective notions and we could evaluate our desires based on how closely they relate to the objective notions of good and evil.
The Greek philosophers would define the objective good for everyone but more modern philosophers like Locke disagree and say that happiness is different things to different people.
Adler states four classes of goods:
- external goods (wealth)
- bodily goods (health)
- social goods (friendship)
- moral goods (knowledge/wisdom)
In this categorization, happiness depends on a basic satisfaction of the first three categories, and on a deep satisfaction of the fourth.
Stoics argue that these goods are neither good nor evil. That the only good is a person's goodwill. A dutiful being is good, everything else is unimportant. Kant said: "It is not right for men to seek happiness or to wish to be happy, rather they should conduct their lives that they deserve to be happy."
# Freedom
Three kinds:
- political or economic freedom
- psychological freedom (free will)
- moral freedom (integrated personality/not neurotic)
The first of these freedoms will be discussed.
Johnathan Edwards says that people may not be free to control their wishes but they might still be free to execute on their wishes. And that this shall be enough to constitute freedom.
Freedom can negative, as free from coercion, and positive, as in free to act. Freedom is being able to act, as opposed to being acted upon.
## Some Questions About Freedom
Can animals or things like stones also be free? Hobbes says yes, a rock is free from rolling down the hill if nothing prevents it. Others say no, humans are special in having consciousness and a desire for self-determination.
Is coercion only physical or is the instillation of fear also coercion? Hobbes again says that coercion is only physical. Others say no, fear or immaterial coercion does exist. Removing the means is a form of that, e.g. when someone takes away my food, I am not free to eat it.
Do alternatives need to exist in order for us to be free? Is a man content to sit in a prison cell free? He is not being coerced, but he could not escape even if he wanted to. Hobbes says the man is free, Locke says he is not.
Is success important to freedom? Is the power to achieve success important for one to be free?
## Law And Freedom
The Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill, argue that any law is a coercion on freedom. The more laws, the less freedom. Others argue than a person is not coerced by law. Rather, laws can be decided on democratically, and the people are still free if they participated in the enactment of the law. According to this view, a consensual coercion can still be talked about as freedom. William Penn, Rousseau, Locke and Kant all are proponents of this view. Locke says: "For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be where there is no law." According to this view, only unjust laws count as coercion.
# Learning
Everything that can be taught was once learned through discovery.
All learning is active. Which can involve practical activity, but it should mostly involve thinking.
Adler says teachers should decide what needs to be taught, and then instill motivation and interest in the pupils. Teaching should not stem from the initial interests of the pupils.
Adler sets up this argument that teaching must revolve around a child's weaknesses. Teaching is then a tool to round up the pupil, not to encourage the child's talents. This view is coherent with the imposition of a canon for reading, or of a canon of Great Ideas. This is not supported strongly in the text but it rubs against a more modern view of education as a way to help the children to fulfillment.
Learning happens or should happen for a whole lifetime. Adult learning is necessary. The purpose for the schooling of children is to learn how to learn.
We are never too old to learn, we are sometimes too young to learn.
# Reading a Book
We can read for information, or read for enlightenment. Enlightenment is much harder and requires active reading.
We should read a book three times (or perhaps more realistically three ways).
## First Reading
First, answer the four questions:
- Classify the book
- Summarize the book
- How does each part relate to the other parts?
- What is the question or problem the author is trying to solve?
## Second Reading
- Interpret the basic words
- What sentences state the main propositions?
- What is the argument?
- Which problems did the author solve and which did the author not solve?
## Third Reading
- Criticize the text
- Engage in a conversation with the author
- Fill the gaps in the arguments
# Talk
To have a conversation where the goal is learning, there are three requisites:
- the discussion cannot be about facts. Facts are looked up, not discussed.
- the avowed goal of the conversation must be learning. Winning the argument should not be the goal.
- good listening skills to make the back and forth relevant
## The Ten Rules of Conversation
1. pick the right time and location
2. pick the right people
3. selection the issue of conversation and stick to it
4. don't take assumptions for granted
5. avoid fallacies
6. don't agree or disagree until you understand someone's point
7. state your disagreement plainly and specifically:
- by bringing up new facts
- by casting doubt on some facts
- by pointing to a mistake in argumentation
- by carrying the argument further to complete the thought
8. keep emotions out of the conversation
9. catch yourself or the other person getting angry
10. if emotions do come up, beware of the dangers
I think rule #6, #9 and #10 could be omitted for the sake of simplicity.
# Justice
It's a lot easier to say what justice is than what is just in a particular case.
Three ways to define justice:
- Equality: treat equals equally, and unequals unequally
- Property: giving people what belongs to them; paying debt; not stealing
- Law: abide laws; respect community
Aristotle discussed two kinds of justice: the special and the general. The special justice has to do with giving each one their due. The general justice was more about being virtuous and working for the common good.
There is also a notion of conventional justice. A just person will drive on the appropriate side of the road, but driving on the other side is only unjust at the point where the law is enacted. Before the convention is decided on, the just or unjust side of the road to drive on does not exist. This discussion feels a bit stilted, probably because the discussion is based more in linguistics than in reality.
So we make laws and we think they are just. And the just person will abide by these laws. But how do we make just laws in the first place? Is there a natural justice? Some argue that a person has unalienable rights and that just laws will protect these rights. Others like Hobbes and Spinoza argue that law is constructed by governments only and therefore what is just or unjust will depend on the code of law of the particular polity we are looking at. In other words, might makes right.
# Punishment
Punishment can be about retribution (Kant/Hegel) or prevention (Rousseau/Hobbes/Utilitarians).
The prevention side of the argument states that it might make sense to have the thief reimburse the victim, but in other cases the punishment is mere vengeance. For instance, the punishment of a murderer does not help the murder victim. Perhaps some form of punishment can be helpful as a deterrent but otherwise the punishment should only serve as prevention. The punishment should fit the criminal, not the crime.
So it looks like punishment serves not two but three purposes: retribution, reformation and deterrence. Reasonable people will disagree on which is the most important and by how much.
# Work
Adler points out that a life, in the pre-industrial era, can be divided between work and sleep. Now life can be divided between work, play, leisure, rest and sleep.
Adler defines play as uncompensated, as opposed to work. And he defines rest in the same sense as the religious sense for a day of rest, the sabbath.
The whole argument here is a bit circular as Adler defines the five divisions of life and then goes on to explain and define each one. The point is muddled.
Leisure is more important than work. We work for leisure. Leisure is inherently beneficial. Play is not. Rest is, only in the sense that it prepares for more of work or leisure.
... see complete review here.
May 20, 2018
This was originally a radio talk show that was transcribed in book form. In many parts the reading is difficult and tedious - it would be much easier to listen to than it is to read. There are some good ideas present in the book, but I do disagree with a lot of what is said. For pleasure's sake, this would be a very, very poor choice.
May 5, 2014
Comprised of the edited transcripts of the 1950s television series The Great Ideas produced by the Institute for Philosophical Research in San Fransisco, this book introduces laypeople to 52 great ideas of philosophy through dialogue between an interviewer and the philosopher Mortimer Adler.
The concept of "The Great Ideas" was championed by Dr Adler as a foundation for education and consists in identifying the major themes discussed throughout the history of Western philosophy: Truth, Freedom, Beauty, Law, Government, God, to name some of the prominent examples. The point of the discussions are not to put forward specific opinions (though Dr Adler often does share his personal viewpoint) but to clarify controversies over the Great Ideas as they have been discussed in history. Each discussion includes details of what philosophers have argued in the past and often questions that have been written in by viewers.
Very accessible to beginners and good for someone who's been out of school for a while and wants to start getting back into the life of the mind.
The concept of "The Great Ideas" was championed by Dr Adler as a foundation for education and consists in identifying the major themes discussed throughout the history of Western philosophy: Truth, Freedom, Beauty, Law, Government, God, to name some of the prominent examples. The point of the discussions are not to put forward specific opinions (though Dr Adler often does share his personal viewpoint) but to clarify controversies over the Great Ideas as they have been discussed in history. Each discussion includes details of what philosophers have argued in the past and often questions that have been written in by viewers.
Very accessible to beginners and good for someone who's been out of school for a while and wants to start getting back into the life of the mind.
June 28, 2014
So incredible to think about ideas in their purest form and to really feel like you are getting something priceless for the price of a few minutes. He did all the work of compiling evidence for each of the great ideas and put it into the form of a totally accessible dialogue. Bravo I say. One of the best books I've read bar none. It is a safe bet to say that after reading this book my conversion into a full fledged adlerphile is complete.
December 17, 2013
Wonderful book, very significant and interesting. The chapters about Opinion were really very revelatory. Its a collection of transcripts from a television program that aired in the 50s. Mortimer Adler is one of the finest minds of the last century, and his analysis is clear and insightful.
June 10, 2012
Love the concept of this book. It achieves what it specifically stakes out to do - to get more people thinking. It's not meant to be an authoritative text on philosophy or the breat ideas. It just gives an introduction to these topics, enough background information to catalyze thinking.
April 19, 2010
A good bathroom type book for the thinker.
February 15, 2016
5 stars = Yearly re-read
4 stars = Re-read eventually
3 stars = Very Good
2 stars = OK
1 stars = Pass on this one.
0 stars = Couldn't finish it.
4 stars = Re-read eventually
3 stars = Very Good
2 stars = OK
1 stars = Pass on this one.
0 stars = Couldn't finish it.
December 7, 2017
I have long wanted to read this book because some people hold it in high regard.
This is a philosophy book, and it looks like it will eventually come out to be anti-religion. So far it is dry and pedantic in an abstruse way. It is not enlightening or interesting, just pedantic. It is not worth finishing.
This is a philosophy book, and it looks like it will eventually come out to be anti-religion. So far it is dry and pedantic in an abstruse way. It is not enlightening or interesting, just pedantic. It is not worth finishing.
December 4, 2019
Not my deal
July 11, 2022
I've been a fan of Adler and his persistent attempts to get the world to think. Especially thinking of philosophy. An effort not attempted by 99.9% of writers. Especially these days, as most writings have a political ax to grind. Usually in an irrational way.
Through Adler's large assortment of books, he presents so much for we humans to consider and discuss. i love to point out, in the late '50s he had assembled a 47 volume set of his Great Books that was a best seller. Couldn't get any one of those books as -even- a medium good seller today.
He winnowed his Encyclopedia Brittanica work to turn to his later best-sellers, 'Aristotle for Everybody' and 'Six Great Ideas'.
This volume winnows a multi-part series of discussions to this volume presented mostly as the series had been in the 1950s. Though clunky at times, this is still an excellent presentation of ideas and various views of those ideas. Including Adler's own. A must for the thinking out there.
Today's crowd would likely get bent out of shape that the views are not their own, with the actual belief that no other view should be had, presented or discussed. Sad lot they are. Exactly what Adler saw coming by the obvious erosion of thinking public.
I love Adler's presentation. It's clear and direct. He mentioned Bertrand Russell in this volume. Russell was the philosopher before Adler that also worked to reach the general public. Russell had many best sellers from the 1900s through the '60s. I admit Russell is my favorite philosopher due to his efforts to reach as large an audience he could. I further admit I disagree with much of Russell's views. Isn't the challenge of the mind what keeps us really alive?!
Bottom line: I recommend this book. 9 out of ten points.
Through Adler's large assortment of books, he presents so much for we humans to consider and discuss. i love to point out, in the late '50s he had assembled a 47 volume set of his Great Books that was a best seller. Couldn't get any one of those books as -even- a medium good seller today.
He winnowed his Encyclopedia Brittanica work to turn to his later best-sellers, 'Aristotle for Everybody' and 'Six Great Ideas'.
This volume winnows a multi-part series of discussions to this volume presented mostly as the series had been in the 1950s. Though clunky at times, this is still an excellent presentation of ideas and various views of those ideas. Including Adler's own. A must for the thinking out there.
Today's crowd would likely get bent out of shape that the views are not their own, with the actual belief that no other view should be had, presented or discussed. Sad lot they are. Exactly what Adler saw coming by the obvious erosion of thinking public.
I love Adler's presentation. It's clear and direct. He mentioned Bertrand Russell in this volume. Russell was the philosopher before Adler that also worked to reach the general public. Russell had many best sellers from the 1900s through the '60s. I admit Russell is my favorite philosopher due to his efforts to reach as large an audience he could. I further admit I disagree with much of Russell's views. Isn't the challenge of the mind what keeps us really alive?!
Bottom line: I recommend this book. 9 out of ten points.
December 6, 2009
I've been a fan of the Great Books and Great Ideas since my days of yore at junior college. I like this book and the way Adler, et al. tried to get people to read and think.
This book is a good starting point for philosophy and ideas, and what thinkers have had to say over the course of history. Adler has a good way of giving elementary sketches of ideas and making all of it very interesting. The biggest drawback is the number of topics covered in this book. Also, there is no a lot of depth. However, I'm not saying that Adler's discussions are shallow or simplistic. You're just left wanting to know more. This just illustrates the positive part of the book, you'll want to continue and move beyond the basic points Adler raises. If you've ever wanted an introduction to philosophy this book is a great place to start.
This book is a good starting point for philosophy and ideas, and what thinkers have had to say over the course of history. Adler has a good way of giving elementary sketches of ideas and making all of it very interesting. The biggest drawback is the number of topics covered in this book. Also, there is no a lot of depth. However, I'm not saying that Adler's discussions are shallow or simplistic. You're just left wanting to know more. This just illustrates the positive part of the book, you'll want to continue and move beyond the basic points Adler raises. If you've ever wanted an introduction to philosophy this book is a great place to start.
April 12, 2008
"There are a limited number of Great Ideas which form the core of the thought of Western Civilization," from the preface.
Mortimer Adler selected 22 of those ideas and masterfully explained and applied those ideas to modern times in a way that does not require a graduate degree in philosophy to understand.
Mortimer Adler selected 22 of those ideas and masterfully explained and applied those ideas to modern times in a way that does not require a graduate degree in philosophy to understand.
December 30, 2012
"How To Think About The Great Ideas," by Mortimer J. Adler, is based on the TV show transcripts - 52 chapters. One of the author's 60 some-odd books, Adler was also the driving force behind Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books of the Western World, Annals of American History. Definitely enjoyed the book!
November 30, 2008
Helpful for leading seminar I suppose as long as one remains wary of his politics / ever present perspective on said ideas ... I'm not a fan.
February 20, 2024
"Como Pensar as Grandes Ideias" de Mortimer J. Adler é uma obra que desafia o leitor a mergulhar em reflexões profundas sobre conceitos fundamentais da existência humana, como verdade, governo, Deus e natureza. Com uma abordagem filosófica e analítica, o autor estimula o pensamento crítico, convidando à reflexão sobre a natureza do homem, a estrutura do governo, a importância da participação cívica e a presença de Deus na tradição intelectual ocidental. Por meio de uma exploração abrangente e provocativa das grandes ideias, o livro inspira o leitor a buscar o conhecimento, a compreender a complexidade do mundo e a aprimorar sua capacidade de pensar de forma crítica e analítica sobre questões essenciais da vida.
January 11, 2021
For complete beginner to philosophy and the great ideas, this high-level map provides a great overview and brief discussion between philosophers spanning over centuries.
Because it's transcribed from a TV show, sometimes it is too verbatim and distracting, but sometime the conversational text makes the idea easier to understand due to multiple iterations and re-phrases as normally happen in conversation.
Because it's transcribed from a TV show, sometimes it is too verbatim and distracting, but sometime the conversational text makes the idea easier to understand due to multiple iterations and re-phrases as normally happen in conversation.
May 8, 2025
Perhaps I shouldn't review this book because I only read some chapters. I love reading philosophy even when I disagree with the philosopher's beliefs. But I demand a logical foundation, and Adler seems to skirt around sound explanations with colorful vocabulary and answers to irrelevant questions that he believes support his arguments. I am not an expert by any means, but I find his text passé, pontifical, and opinionated.
June 13, 2021
Um bom livro, daqueles que volta e meia terei que voltar para consulta. Alguns temas me surpreenderam, estava na expectativa por outras coisas. Outras temas, mais importantes, estão divididos em vários subtemas. O autor prima pelo bom senso, mas nem sempre concordo. O ponto negativo é que o autor gasta 570 páginas para dizer o que poderia ter dito em 400. É preciso paciência..
November 26, 2018
This book can turn a very foolish man into a very wise one.
Read
December 20, 2021大观念
8.5 (108人评价) [美] 莫提默·J. 艾德勒 / 安佳 / 花城出版社 / 2008
内容简介 本书是一位活跃的哲学教育家就其精选的哲学命题所做的发人深省的论述，也可看成是一部哲学导论。本书改编自莫提默·J.艾德勒教授为美国经典电视系列节目所作的...
8.5 (108人评价) [美] 莫提默·J. 艾德勒 / 安佳 / 花城出版社 / 2008
内容简介 本书是一位活跃的哲学教育家就其精选的哲学命题所做的发人深省的论述，也可看成是一部哲学导论。本书改编自莫提默·J.艾德勒教授为美国经典电视系列节目所作的...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 1, 2022
Great introduction to the Great Ideas/philosophy. Enjoyed it thoroughly
February 9, 2025
(4 stars)
Great and entertaining introduction to philosophy and the core questions of human existence.
Great and entertaining introduction to philosophy and the core questions of human existence.
January 16, 2018
I originally was required to read samples of this book for a class, and was so intrigued by it that I bought it for myself and read the rest! It is a sincere philosophical examination of a wide breadth of topics, and is especially good for provoking thought.
April 26, 2017
Excellent book. The author discusses in a very clear and balanced way several of the major ideas that form the very core of Western Civilization.
Read
December 20, 2018Adler was a mentor to one of my American literary heroes, Clifton Fadiman. This one of Adler's most popular books and it is easy to see why it was so at the time. Today it seems like a whimsical exercise, out of date in this age. The fact remains that it represents an important moment in middle class American society and generated a renaissance in the interest in serious literature. I read it fo the first time when I was eighteen years old and it sparked my interest in classical tests that has never waned. A rereading of this book has proven to be the perfect way to begin my retirement.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews