Philosophy of Mind

Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Series #3

by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Psychology, History, German Literature, Germany

384 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1817

About the author

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher and one of the founding figures of German Idealism. Influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism and Rousseau's politics, Hegel formulated an elaborate system of historical development of ethics, government, and religion through the dialectical unfolding of the Absolute. Hegel was one of the most well-known historicist philosopher, and his thought presaged continental philosophy, including postmodernism. His system was inverted into a materialist ideology by Karl Marx, originally a member of the Young Hegelian faction.

Reviews

[Frederick · Rating 2 out of 5]

For months now I have been trying to make sense of this writing. I've read passages to my wife to see if I was just making it more difficult than it is. But, I'm afraid, that to me, Hegel is indecipherable. I don't have the mental capacity to wrap my mind around what he is trying to say. He writes like an inmate of a mental institution run by the late psychiatrist, R.D. Laing, as portrayed in the 1972 documentary, Asylum. Here's an example;

"The essential and actual truth which reason is, lies in the simple identity of the subjectivity of the notion, with its objectivity and universality. The universality of reason, therefore, whilst it signifies that the object, which was only given in consciousness quâ consciousness, is now itself universal, permeating and encompassing the ego, also signifies that the pure ego is the pure form which overlaps the object, and encompasses it without it."

I will restrict myself now to reading about Hegel and hope that more intelligent people can instruct me on what he is talking about.

[Amelia Orr]

One of the most intensely compelling, challenging, and rewarding texts I’ve ever read up (until he turns towards the practical mind—significantly less strong and contains essentially all of the major ideas Hegel is criticized for).The discussion of language and its significance as a moment of absolute return inward, as the moment of individual creation which becomes and reunites with the universal alone makes the entire text worth reading. I had doubts and anxieties about starting this (see: people make reading Hegel seem like an exclusive club which you aren’t smart enough to get anything out of), but his depiction of the absolute movement, the motion, the process of mind is beautiful and intellectually astonishing. I got so much more out of it than I ever expected to. Read slowly and curiously.

Read for Dr. Richard Winfield’s Philosophy of Mind seminar. Read alongside his books The Living Mind and The Intelligent Mind. I would definitely recommend them as strong and helpful guides for anyone trying to start making sense of Hegel.

[Warren Fournier · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Mind"-blowing!

If you plan to read Hegel, you should make sure you don't get confused about which of his works you are actually going to read when you search for his "Philosophy of Mind". This review concerns the third of his three-volume Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. The other book sometimes refered to as "Hegel's Philosophy of Mind" is an English translation of his more famous "Phenomenology of Spirit". However, the version I am discussing here is supposed to be a more concise representation of his mature philosophy on the subject. The Encyclopedia was published as a study guide for attendees of his lectures, and all the volumes as a whole outline his entire system of philosophy. That was mighty nice of Hegel.

The translation I read was by Oxford professor William Wallace from 1894, and Wallace includes five essays of his own, which doubles the length of his version from the original, but which he hoped would clear things up even further. That was mighty nice of him, too!

Because as you likely know, Hegel is no light reading. In fact, now I know why Schopenhauer made fun of the guy, accusing Hegel of being a charlatan who razzledazzled German academia with his dry and purple prose to disguise the fact that he didn't know what the hell he was doing. Schopenhauer is a joy to read. Hegel, on the other hand, is a mess. But, while I have certainly encountered my share of authors who are fully of fancy words with no substance, is Hegel one of them?

Not so much! It depends on what you are looking for and what you can get behind. Schopenhauer, like many philosophers today, would say that Hegel had no business calling himself a philosopher but rather a theologian. Kant said that Reason is the barrier to the absolute form that is God--to attach any predicate to God or to conceive God at all is to think of limits or to negate God. But Hegel's point of view was that if we can only talk about God as completely outside of us, then we have limited God. God has no limits, and thus must be involved with us and a part of us. That's what Christianity tells us. He therefore tries to use his dialectic to reconcile that part of his Christian background with what he admired in Aristotle and Kant. And part of figuring it out is seen in his work on Geist (Spirit or Mind), where he ran wild with an originally Aristotlean notion of God as "Thought thinking Itself."

Now, considering the animosity that Schopenhauer held for Hegel, I was shocked that there were more similarities than differences between the two great philosophers. But I think the irreconcilable point boils down to the fact that Schopenhauer was a pessimist and Hegel was a Pollyanna.

Both talk about the "Will" as the thing-in-itself, but for Schopenhauer the Will is irrational. Hegel, on the other hand, saw the Will as rational, driving a state of Becoming with some greater end-goal.

Hegel saw Mind on three levels: subjective, objective, and absolute. So we have individual minds within each thinking person. There are limits to what these finite minds can perceive of reality, as Kant would say. Then we have ideas such as religion, culture, and society, which are not objects but do exist and are shared among all people. Like a brain! It is the destiny of humanity to step outside of nature, to leave the Garden of Eden, and to form the cells of the rather "unnatural" personality of Society. Then there's Absolute Mind. Sounds like the catchphrase for a vodka ad, or a strain of psilocybin mushroom, or the name of a kickass band. The perfection of Absolute Mind through all History is in Mind coming to completely know itself.

Which falls nicely with how contemporary theoretical physicists are noticing how the universe mirrors the structure of a brain. Is everything part of this brain, and is the universe digesting the vastness of its substance through all its infinite experiences of being? If, as Hegel suggests, the full depth and unity of History ends in eternal Absolute Mind, are we to some day "awaken" after death as this one Mind after unfathomable time as seemlessly as after a colonoscopy?

"But Warren, you Absolute Mind," I hear you say, "are you sure you didn't have a bit of those psychedelic mushrooms you were talking about or something?"

No, smart-ass. I am a bit sleep-deprived, though. That's what reading this stuff does to you. Is it worth it?

Well, remember what I said about how your opinion about Hegel likely depends on what you are looking for? After all, Karl Marx said Hegel was a huge influence on him, and while now I can see how, it is nonetheless impressive considering Marx was an atheist.

For me, I do feel Schopenhauer had the better arguments. His explanations were more elegant and simple, which is often a good indicator of the Truth. And the cynical, industrial-music-loving, down-with-the-establishment side of me wants to cheer on the grumpy, soulless ol' Schopie. But the middle-aged scientist, husband, and father in me sure would hate for this brief sojourn into conscious life to be all for nought. That all the love, heartache, pain, beauty, wisdom, education, and relationships of this life don't mean squat when your brain ceases to function. That all of history and the lives of trillions of organisms lost each year are just phenomena of a blind Will.

But Schopenhauer assures us that when we die part of us remains eternal as the unconscious Will.

Well, whoop-dee-fuckin-doo!

I don't pretend to know better as far as what happens to us, if anything, when we kick the bucket. I do believe that, as I live, the world is my representation, and that we cannot know the thing-in-itself. And so I certainly don't believe that my experience of self as I know it will remain immortal in some heaven beyond the pearly gates. But it sure seems like there is some purpose to all this beyond the endless striving of a Will without conscience or consciousness. That is why, to me, it seems that Schopenhauer struggles with some consequences of his own philosophy. Like, why don't we just kill ourselves and be done with it? He does not suggest we do such a thing, and in fact, many readers have found reason to go on living BECAUSE of Schopenhauer's work. Nevertheless, this is where I think Hegel has an edge, and where I imagine Schopenhauer nervously loosening his collar and doing the pee-pee dance a bit.

But Hegel may have gotten a bit dotty in Schopenhauer's day, thinking he could prove the solar system could only contain seven celestial bodies and all. We know how that turned out for him. And I did sometimes have my own issues with Hegel while reading this book.

For example, though the main focus of this book is not ethics, I do find Hegel's rejection of the moral life in favor of the Greek "ethical life" a bit problematic, as he seems to co-opt Kant's idea that the moral act is done out of an individual sense of duty and then goes nuts, applying it to cultural norms and societal laws which have been developed by Mind Objective, by Reason, stating that essentially one should follow the established rules as a "duty" which will bring happiness. Here is another thing that likely pissed Schopenhauer off, as he felt that any narcissistic act is by definition immoral. If following the letter of the law or the will of the State means hurting others or conflicts with the welfare of society, then who are we to insist law is infallible? Who created the law if not human beings? How can such a moral act be "pure" when tainted with the "immoral" selfish desire to be worthy of happiness? I noticed Hegel is sure to mention that "in aiming at the good... the particular interest ought not to be a constituent motive." But in Hegel's system, it sure seems to be, yet by the time this Encyclopedia was completed, perhaps Schopenhauer's early criticism refined Hegel's thoughts on this subject, since Hegel acknowledges these objections but nonetheless insists that harmony can be achieved by the integration of selfish wants and accepted codes of conduct. It is because of the selfish will of individuals that this atomism must coalesce into civil society or state external.

I'll have to study this section further over time, as here Hegel is muddier than usual to me. Schopenhauer's moral philosophy, on the other hand, is crystal clear, firmly centered on compassion rather than duty, as he did not have faith in the inherent Reason and Goodness of the will of our political and judicial structures and the like. I'm with Schopie on this. Hegel believed the ultimate government is the constitutional monarchy, much like the U.K. has today. I bet my friends across the pond didn't know they were in such an enlightened and evolved society! In the meantime, the implications of Hegel's philosophy of mind trickle down into utopian ideas about the State and Law, leading to the kind of rhetoric where even asking questions of our government is not only dismissed as conspiracy theories but immoral. Yet sometimes Hegel's traditionalist values make some sense, such as when he argues for the family as an essential and immediate step in the evolution of objective mind by combining individual personalities into a single "person." From this basis comes the sequel of community and nation. Thus it stands to reason that if a malevolent power wanted to destroy national spirit, the family would be the main target. Gee--I guess I'm as much of a pessimist as Schopenhauer!

Whether you tend to agree with Hegel or not, he did give us such a rich and comprehensive system in which anyone can be sure to find something inspiring or enlightening. He really was ahead of his time in a lot of ways. For instance, I was shocked at how progressive his thoughts were on mental health, and, though Freud never considered Hegel an influence, don't even get me started on what consequences Hegel's philosophy could mean for classical psychoanalysis. And as I've already said, his work has given me something meaty to chew on regarding God and morality, perhaps even some restoration of faith, and that is something I can get behind.

So despite Schopenhauer's warning that Hegel would poison my brain, I must say that I am glad to have read this volume. Schopenhauer's "The World As Will and Representation" may be the superior book to me, but both men were geniuses, and I think it helps to understand one to read the other--even if Hegel's writing style does kind of suck.

SCORE: 4 subjective minds out of 5

WORD OF THE DAY: Nugatory

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ending was much more reverent than the older edition of Encyclopedia I read a few years ago. Though he does again reiterate the same position that initially blew my mind about nature being the Idea in its otherness. He also spent some time defending philosophy from the accusation that it’s pantheistic.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading nearly all of Hegel's works, I think it's best to consider approaching him with a juridical mind; he wrote the philosophy of the legal document, and his works are attempts to reason out the intricacies of the thinking mind in an authoritative and definitive way.

[Timon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only for fans or historians. Terrible read. Try something 'on' hegel instead.

[Readius Maximus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Note on Edition: I started this Hegel journey with the purchase of the Philosophy of Mind 2014 edition. It's the one with a picture of a dirt trail between trees. It was the worst formatted book I have come across. Seems like it was self published. It had no table of contents and did not translate the Hegelian terms very well (Mind in the title should have been Geist). Note to future buyers do not buy this edition!!! Also the words were so small and hard to see.

For this review I read the Hegel sections I have in various textbooks that combined his writings from many different works but it was outlined in a similiar manner as the above text with Subjective, Objective, and Absolute Geist. Most of my reading came from Norton Anthology of the Interpretive volume. Instead of the 120 pages I read over 230.

I was leery of reading Hegel but I am glad I did. I saw a lot of foreshadowing of his successors in his writings such as Nietzsche and Marx.

Introductory concepts:
All being has the potential to not be. So within being there is nonbeing. This is the beginning of the dialectic I believe. Ex. a chair has within it's existence the potential to not be a chair. Nonbeing and being are negated and transformed into becoming which is a synthesis of the two that does not destroy them completely but retains a part of them. This third term then creates a new starting point as a thesis from which a new antithesis can be drawn and a new synthesis derived. How this develops from the dialectic of being to everything I did not discover in the readings and I am not sure he covered.

Hegel attempts to find truth or true knowledge. To do so he discounts the world of appearance such as a tree. Depending on the moment you look at the tree it could still be a tree or a house. Or the true statement "it is night" is true but when you read it during the next day it is now false despite not changing. The immediate particular moment is not where the truth is to be found but in the concept which embraces and accounts for the changing moments such as the tree one moment and the tree becoming a house in the next.

There are three main areas of study or Wissenschaft's (disciplines), Nature, Logic, and Geist. Nature is the area of study dealing with nature and the natural sciences. Logic seems to be the abstract concepts that are embodied in the study of Nature, and Geist is the synthesis of the abstract with the concrete.

A note on nature is has a soul in the Aristotelian sense of the soul being the shape and concept of nature.

Reason means a rational structure of the world.

Keys words:
Allgemein - meaning universal or more properly general (in contrast to particular).
Aufheben - Negation by cancelling, preserving, and transcending and all three of these at once.
Begriff - Concept.
Wissenschaft - Means discipline.

Outline of the Philosophy of Geist (Mind)

Geist is not surprisingly and like everything else broken into three things comprising the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of Subjective Geist, Objective Geist, and Absolute Geist.

Subjective Geist is broken into three parts Anthropology, Phenomenology, and Psychology.

Anthropology - Also talked about as Soul which is tied to natural forms (racial differences belong here).

Phenomenology - "the soul, by the negation of its corporeity, raises itself to purely ideal self-identity becomes consciousness, becomes 'I'." From the soul emerges consciousness with an object set against it. Then self consciousness for which ego is the object. The unity of consciousness and self-consciousness where the Geist sees itself in in the object. ie in another person.

Psychology - Is the synthesis of the previous two, the soul and self consciousness, and studies such things as mental vision, ideation, remembering, desires.

"As Consciousness has for its object the stage which preceded it, viz the natural soul, so Geist has or rather makes consciousness its object"

Theoretical Geist and Practical Geist combine to for free Geist as the synthesis.

Objective Geist:

The internal connection of the family is united with the external connection of civil society to form the synthesis of the State. The State is not just the political and military aspects but all the laws and customs of culture as well.

This section also talks about ethicality which is adherence to the norms, laws, habits, of a people (volk).

Absolute Geist:

Art and religion form a synthesis that results in philosophy. The highest level of Geist knowing itself as Geist.

Hegel thought Romanticism was the highest stage in art.

Art has several parts, the first was painting where you have the physical medium, second is music where where you have no substance and pure abstraction, the synthesis of the two creates poetry where the abstraction and the substance of the previous two are united and in it's highest form leads into dialogue and thus sets the stage for philosophy.

Summary thoughts:

Hegel is very conservative. He dispenses with the world of mere appearance for Geist is the prior of everything and must go through the process of becoming in order to come to know itself as Geist thinking itself and thus reaches absolute freedom in self actualization. So Hagel starts with appearance, goes through the dialectic and a very very long series of abstractions, only to arrive back at the world of appearance completely justified as the way it is. Thus everything is completely justified the way it is. In fact being good to Hegel is holding to the norms of your people whatever they may be since they are an expression of Geist at that time. Change for Hegel comes through the great man i.e.. He lived during the time of Napoleon!

Marx turns Hegel's idealism and conservatism into a materialistic and progressive philosophy. Hegel saw everything fine as it was. Marx sees everything that is is wrong and must be changed.

This philosophy also completely loses track of the individual since everything is the movement of Geist culturally and the individual just has to obey the ethicality. Which is maintained by the majority I would presume which means Hegel is saying just agree to do whatever the majority wills. In this way he not only sets the state for 20th century totalitarianism with historicity of these movements and creating the dialectic formula for Marxism but his morality is very Hobbesian in arguing for obedience to the will of the masses that define the ethicality of a society.

Hegel abstracts the dialectic from Socrates where Socrates talks to someone in order to find the truth and reach a synthesis of their two view points. The dialectic though massacre's truth and the process of finding truth in it's abstract formulism. Sure the formula is the same but it dispenses with the stranger and Socrates genuinely seeking to find the truth. The dialectic is not Hegel seeking the truth but Hegel telling you what he thinks and "knows" the truth to be. Thus the dialectic is not a path to absolute truth but the path to absolute insanity as we see during Mao and Stalin.

Reading Hagel was mortifying to me since I saw some of my own tendencies reflected in him such as the love of history and the ancients and the desire to find the unifying theme that can encapsulate everything. And to see my own desires and way of thinking be the very things that have led to such horrors was as I said mortifying. If our place had been changed I am afraid I would have played the same game in the same way. A reminder to be very warry of one's own seemingly good intentions and the horrible consequences that can arise from such seemingly innocent desires.

For Hegel is and ought are the same. IE what is actual is what ought to be morally. Marx completely reverses this.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I know this sounds ridiculous, but what a wild ride. I have never felt more liberated and in possession of the infamous Absolute Knowledge reading this while at the same time constantly butting up against the limitations of language and being banished to sounding like a perverted maniac every time I attempt to explain myself. It took me so long to grasp Hegel and now I have it I don’t know what to do with it.

[Ntombi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am currently reading this book, a very good read that will leave you in total consciousness!

[Mathias]

Hegel criticizes the attempt of 'phrenology' to reduce mind to matter. The problem of conciousness, the reflection of 'mind' is also the problem of metaphysics.

Studying at credoakademien in 2014, under Mats Selander, i proposed that the 'substance of mind' could be put forth as an argument for the shortcomings of 'materialism'(or 'naturalism' as the apologists would call it). Since then, I have heard him develop a rethoric in the same line of argument, clashing with neurosurgeon Pekka Mellergård (who argues a 'soft' idiosyncratic substance dualism, constantly having reservations toward 'conservarive' theology, leaving listeners somewhat awkwardly perplexed) in person at a conference for apologetics and science. Mats Selander on the other hand developed an idiosyncratic form of 'hard' gnostic substance dualism, using bits and parts from tales from throughout charismatic fundamentalist religiosity, Alien and in contrast to the rationalistic scholasticism of William Lain Craig. Pekka, with background in neurosurgery, argued against his position of 'hard' substance dualism in favor of a 'soft' one, the rivalry in full display between the interlocutors, with Pekka stating that he could turn Mats into a 'sock' using a scalpel, implying that his soul would become damaged if his brain tissue were cut (LOL). Mats replied that performing surgery on brains did not translate to actually using the brain as a tool for rational apologetics (in a somewhat rehearsed manner, indicating that he invented this witticism in his preparation for debate).

This weird encounter left the listeners confused , and it indicated to me that the proponents of philosophy of religion within the swedish protestant cultural sphere, were not equipped with the tools to answer metaphysical questions. I felt dissapointed in the older generations, since I do not believe there is a lack of engagenent nor a lack of problem solving capacity - rather, there has been a lack of authenticity and holistical thinking.

Approaching Hegel, or Kierkegaard, or Kant, I think the contours of a 'shared intentionality infrastructure' lays itself out. Studying psychiatry, and applying the method of critical thinking to psychiatry, the Labour would eventually yield the same results. I am dissapointed in the religionists who shy away from engaging culture and academia and therefore do not propel any authentic understanding forward. Grasping the rethoric of Hegel is to deal with the problem of metaphysics , which should be the goal of anyone who claims to be involved in the project if philosophy.

Metaphysics is the 'shared intentionality infrastructure' described by Tomasello.

[Mario · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is almost a prototypical philosophical text, albeit somewhat drier. It has all of the requisite sections: part one bases the philosophy on real science, part two is where you extrapolate way beyond what science or logic would allow, part three is where you call your critics idiots. Unfortunately for Hegel, the science he relied on in part one has since been proven false, leaving only section two with any residual value. But there are some genuine insights here, and some very interesting ideas. It's just extraordinarily difficult to extract them.

[Medhat ullah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Philosophy of Mind demonstrates the self-mediation of Geist, which, in its immediacy, begins as a latent unity of being and self-consciousness, traverses its alienation in objectivity, and culminates in the self-positing identity of subject and object in the Absolute. This process reveals that freedom is the telos of Geist, actualized through the dialectical movement of thought, society, and the Absolute.

[Bohemian Bluestocking · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my first book of Hegel and I kept trying to find something to hold and grasp, but perhaps I will need to read Phenomenology of Spirit and then come back to this. I started this last year and recently picked it up to finish it. Took notes, annotated in all forms but right now my brain is mush. I guess I will need to reread my notes.

[Torsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

რა იყო ეს ჰაა? რა წავიკითხე :D როგორ, რაინაირად

[Gabija · Rating 2 out of 5]

hegel halt 👍

[Halil Duzcu]

anlamadım

[Gregoriye · Rating 3 out of 5]

That s only my opinion, if author's writing was translated in a more simple way, then book will be less interesting

[Δx Δp ≥ ½ ħ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Saya sebenarnya tidak percaya ada fenomena keracunan buku. Mata merah dan pedas, perut kram, kepala pusing bak ditinju Tyson, dan alis pegel setelah seharian mengerut dan gejala lainnya yang tidak baik untuk kesehatan. Tapi, gejala itu saya alami pas baca buku yang luar biasa (hebat sekaligus mengerikan) ini.

Ditulis oleh sorang sesepuh yang telah menjadi kiblat dunia filsafat, buku ini bak minuman arak asli. murni sekaligus memabukkan. Pas, liburan pemilu dikasih pinjem ma temen, liburan akhir pekan menjadi tidak lagi nyaman :((

Well, bener deh, ni buku njelimet abis. mana kata-kata yang digunakan terlalu canggih buat kepala saya. bahkan saya bener-bener kaget. buku ini pertama ditulis tahun 1807. tapi, 200 tahun kemudian, kata-kata dan pemikirannya masih terlampau canggih. nyaris hanya di halaman-halaman awal saja saya mengerti isi buku ini. Itu pun sedikit. Tadinya, nantang ke temen, buku filsafat apa yang paling sulit. dia ngasih buku ini, dan ternyata... OMG!

Dan saya bener-bner bersyukur kalo ternyata Hegel bukan seorang fisikawan. Kebayang, nulis buku tanpa persamaan aza dah jelimet, palagi ditambah nerangin teori mekanika kuantum Schroodinger atau prinsip lokalitas Bell? Soalnya, pas baca buku ini, saya mendapatkan sensasi yang sama seperti saat baca buku tentang Mekanika Quantum dan General Relativity. bener-bener bikin mabuk dan kepala pening.

Jd, coz sy sendiri kagak ngatri isi total buku ini, jd gak bisa ripiyu. baca aza sendiri dan berdoalah moga tidak muntah. Saran juga, mending baca buku 'Hegel for Beginners'. lebih manusiawi isinya. tentu saja jika itu tujuan kita, hanya sebatas mengenal. tapi, kalau ingin memahami, yah baca buku aslinya. dan mending beli dulu antimo sebelum baca :D

[Bernie4444 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Takes time to read and read again for the effect

They want to make very sure you do not read Hegel out of context. We have a very long introduction that predefines what philosophy is and related sciences. Finally, we have an overview of Hegel's system by comparing it to Mr. Herbert Spenser. We also get coverage of other thinkers such as Johann Friedrich Herbart, Kant, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, Fichte, Goethe, Aristotle, Boëthius, etc. They even toss in quotes in Latin form Terentius.

This work is very wordy as is most works of the time; so get used to wordy sentences that could be expressed today with less flamboyance. There is also some overlap of the same thoughts in different sections; it may be seen as a redundancy but is really necessary to make a new point of insight. If you think this is an all-the-way-out theory, keep reading as Hegel show how it applies to everyday life as in politics. Speaking of politics, there is a lot of information on the nature of the rational mind. You will come away with the feeling that you got more than your money's worth.

[Kaine Ransby · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book really shows it’s age as it is extremely slow and hard to read. I didn’t finish the book as I felt each new dense does not grow on ideas presented towards the beginning book.
Useful as reference of material, but I wouldn’t recommend as a cover-to-cover read.

[Steve Clark]

1030 pages