Abraham did the right thing when he argued with God about God’s intention to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah (not when he agreed to sacrifice his son Isaac). By standing up for his ethical ideals in opposition to the demands of his religion, Abraham foreshadowed the values of the Enlightenment.
Neiman believes that we should adopt certain key Enlightenment values, in opposition to cultural trends on both the right and the left (but mostly the right). She focuses on happiness, reason, reverence and hope. She contends that Enlightenment thinkers understood the limitations of reason. They also realized that progress is not inevitable. But thinkers like Kant showed the way to a universalist morality that favors reason over tradition, knowledge over superstition, and hope over fear. (12/26/10)
Hedges argues that there is a power elite that controls the corporations, which completely control the economy, government and media. The power elite has instituted a permanent war economy that will shortly lead to financial and ecological catastrophe. This process began with the government’s use of propaganda to suppress opposition to World War I. Political liberals might have stopped the ascension of the power elite if they had stayed true to principles of peace and justice.
But the “liberal class” no longer speaks truth to power. Liberals in government, academia and the media may call for reform, but they are powerless to change anything, having been bought off by their corporate masters. There is nothing for reasonable people to do but retreat into small self-sustaining communities (similar to the monasteries of the Dark Ages) and/or perform acts of rebellion that are likely to have little effect on the status quo.
Given the thesis of this book, it hardly seems worth pointing out that it is repetitious and strangely organized, with sections that aren’t always related to the chapter headings. It also focuses almost completely on the United States, except for one brief section on working conditions in China. Hedges may be right that we are heading for catastrophe as a nation and a planet, but those are different propositions. His principal argument concerns the failure of political liberals to stop the corporate takeover of the United States. He seems to think that global climate change might have been avoided if corporations had less power in the United States, but that doesn’t follow.
Death of the Liberal Class is written with such force, that it is surprising to read on the dust jacket that the author is a columnist for a political website, writes for numerous publications (including Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, Granta and Mother Jones), and lives in Princeton. This makes him sound, accurately or not, like a member of the liberal class that he excoriates with such passion in this book. (12/20/10)
I read this in college and was disappointed because the horrible events deep in the jungle weren’t revealed in much detail. Then there was Apocalypse Now, a version of Heart of Darkness that had its own strangeness and now colors any reading of the older work. Reading this again after 40 years, I’m again disappointed. Much is said about Kurtz, but not enough is revealed. It’s the problem with any work that purports to be about an extraordinary figure. The author can keep saying how extraordinary some character is, over and over again, but it is much more difficult to show that character being extraordinary.
You can argue that leaving the details to the imagination creates a more powerful experience for the reader (people say that radio dramas were scarier than the ones on TV), but in this case more details would have helped. (12/18/10)
Cain wrote these two novellas in the 30s. Each is about a man and a woman who knock off the woman’s husband. Both are written in the first-person, from the man’s perspective. There are few descriptive passages, just fast-moving narrative and lots of dialog. The men and women meet and quickly start plotting their crimes. Neither story ends happily. And neither story is very plausible. (Maybe greedy, passionate people trying to commit the perfect murder always come up with plans that are too complicated.)
One bit of commentary from Double Indemnity: “I had killed a man, for money and a woman. I didn’t have the money and I didn’t have the woman”. That sums up the situation for both these guys. (12/10/10)
Too long, too uneventful, too false. David Copperfield’s life as a boy is dramatic and involving. As he grows older, his life becomes much less interesting. His role in the story is to observe other people’s behavior. Some of the characters he observes are enjoyable. Many are tedious.
The most repellent part of the book is the account of David’s marriage to a ridiculous young woman. As soon as David begins to think that his marriage was a mistake, his young wife develops a cough. Soon she is an invalid. Within a few chapters, she is dead. This allows David to marry a paragon of womanly virtue he has loved since boyhood.
In the end, all the good characters prosper, the evil ones do not. Happy endings usually make readers feel good, but, in this case, it didn’t. (12/5/10)
Israel argues that the Enlightenment was composed of two separate tendencies, a Radical Enlightenment based on the philosophies of Spinoza and Bayle, and a Moderate Enlightenment, partly based on the philosophy of John Locke. The Radical Enlightenment was dedicated to ideals of equality, democracy and universal education. The thinkers of the Radical Enlightenment strongly favored reason and science over religion. They believed that current institutions, both political and religious, including all traces of monarchy and aristocracy, would and should be swept away in a worldwide cultural and political revolution, once the common people had become sufficiently educated.
Israel believes that it was the thinkers of the Radical Enlightenment, such as Diderot, d’Holbach and Thomas Paine, whose ideas gave rise to the revolutions of the late 18th century, in particular the French Revolution. He characterizes the thinkers of the Moderate Enlightenment, such as Rousseau and Kant, as being much more conservative and anti-democratic.
Although Israel’s thesis is convincing, and the book is informative, his prose is repetitious and convoluted. He insists on inserting French phrases that could just as well be translated and includes the same lists of names (Diderot, Helvetius and D’Holbach, for example) over and over again. A Revolution of the Mind is important but not a pleasure to read. (11/11/10)
In 31 chapters, Scruton provides a wide-ranging but relatively detailed account of Western philosophy since Descartes. He seems to have read everything important in the philosophical literature. His account is enlivened by fairly frequent humor and sarcasm. Scruton’s treatment of positions he disagrees with seems even-handed until the last few chapters, when his language becomes obscure and his political conservatism becomes more apparent. The book concludes with an informative 98-page study guide. (10/27/10)