A Good Introduction. Argue With it, But Read it.
937366
This was actually the first book I read all the way through about the Crusades, and it ignited a real passion in me for that period. It's very well-written. She manages to paint the historical figures as memorable characters who maintain interest throughout the book, rather than a set of names and dates. Ms. Armstrong also impresses with her ability to pluck one central conflict out of lots of historical data. It's her main strength as a writer.

But, as the other reviews indicate, she is not always accurate or fair. The book is biased against Christians, as are all her books, and too favorable to Islam. She seems unable to grasp the concept that both Muslims and Christians suffered from the medieval mindset during the Crusades. The peaceful parts of Jesus and Mohammed's philosophy were always linked with old tribal ideas to conquer and exploit.

I find I disagree somewhat, now, with her main thesis that the Crusades were religiously motivated. A better book might deal with the religious as a part of the complete picture. The fact that Christians and Muslims were just as violent towards their own, in many cases more violent, than they were to each other in the Crusades, is evidence that the "holy war" was a very disposable concept.

But, as I said, this book ignited a fire in me and caused me to seek out other scholarship. I cannot help thinking that those who put this book down in disgust simply can't bear to listen to an argument that contradicts their own.
287373
This reads as though it is a summary of academic papers and assumes the reader has some background in the subject matter. The authors start with the premise that the existing model of capitalism has failed, evidenced by the economic downturn in 2008 and suggest the concept of Civic Capitalism, with a focus on more than economic indicators, such as environmental sustainability,  or quality of life,  or  balanced improvements/increased equity. In the second part, additional writers offer other ideas. Part 3 offers next steps for Civic Capitalism to take root.

The two biggest detractions are the academic language and the vagaries of some concepts that the authors say "will be worked out at a later time." To really be convincing to an audience beyond preaching to the choir, it needs to have more detail.

The authors do rightly note that this concept would take years (or decades) to truly implement. It is an interesting read (although dense) and has some concepts that are engaging to read and debate with others.
3255693
This is a very good book. But it is important to note what it is and what it is not. It is a very good book for what it is, and not a very good book for what it is not. Keeping that in mind might have assisted some of those who are expressing disappointment in it.
This is a book for those who are not experts but would like to learn about the marriage issue and matters implicated in the marriage issue, such as the rights of children and religious liberty. Given the books breadth of coverage, it is not surprising that Anderson necessarily summarizes a lot of scholarship without always going into the level of detail that experts might desire.
Still, Anderson cites his sources throughout, and anyone who cares to explore these important questions in detail can easily check his work by examining those sources. So, this is not a book for the intellectually uncurious.
This is also a book for people with open minds. Anderson offers reasoned arguments, extensively researched, drawing from an impressive variety of academic disciplinesmoral philosophy, social science, jurisprudence, and law, to name a few. His arguments are accessible to anyone who cares to reason along with him.
Those who are averse to reasoned arguments will not like this book very much, nor benefit from it. So, it is not a book for those whose minds are closed by bias and dogma.
For the intellectually curious and open-minded, this book is a must-read.
3523315
The general public would benefit from reading this, but the main audience is college students.  It's good as both synthetic study and primary source reader.  Focusing on salt, silk, spices and sugar highlights diverse international connections in premodern times.  "TT" is rather short: ideally it would be c. 180-200 pages, with the extra length devoted to further original source materials.  The authors/editors contextualize the evidence well by giving enough background data, though the maps could be more precise.  Their text is very readable, even sprightly and witty at times, though some errors creep in.  A potential drawback is that the price has gone up and may rise again, reducing its value for readers on a budget (who isn't nowadays?).  Still, it remains a good investment from a worthwhile series.
3320743
Overall, it's interesting and reads well.  I'd relate this to an expanded Wikipedia page, which is not necessarily intended as an insult.  It's a great introduction and overview, but if you want in-depth analysis I'd keep looking.
4474886
This book is interesting, it is a quick and easy read. It uses many references to great political theorist that can lead to new pathways of learning. However, the basic premise of his book appears to be incorrect in my opinion. The man is clearly a "Leftist," easily denoted from his diction is descriptive matters. However, even though he is a leftist, which I generally do no subscribe to, he is still informative, and his opinions cannot be dismissed offhand.

This is interesting to read, you can learn from it. But I have learned more in recognizing and analyizing its follies rather than susbcribing to its doctrine.

It is well written, if not necessarily backed thourghouly in its basic premise, but the style of writting makes it enjoyable and quick enough to race right through.

Recommended for those who would like to see how others may think.
4408324
This is a good book for those wanting to know, "So, what's wrong with Christianity, anyway?", and with being a Christian.  It is less startling than Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", (also a must-read) but is nevertheless another presentation of solid argument. If you would be amongst the informed, skip these books at your peril!
182799
Let's start with the positive.
1) This book presents a look at how moral theories work from outside of them-that is, it tries to describe them without their various assumptions.  I can't say that the book is worth it for this reason alone, but it does make one contemplate moral theories from a different perspective.
2) This book is a comprehensive survey of the status of moral theories.  Williams makes a strong (and largely successful) attempt at presenting the current state of the most important current (as of the writing) moral systems.  There is also a criticism of each different system.  (As the other reviews will tell you, Williams is opposed to the very idea of morality, if not ethics)

Now for the negatives.
1) Williams consistently misreads or misrepresents the philosophers he is criticising.  This is perhaps the most important fault of the book, as the purpose of the book is a critical evaluation of morality, and that can scarcely be convincing or useful when the opposition is not accurately rpresented.  The most glaring example that comes immediately to mind is his account of Kant's "psychological hedonism"
2)  His writing is simply sub par for any serious work of philosophy.  I spend more time deciphering his sentences and paragraphs than I do with those of Kant, and not because they are dealing with complex and difficult subjects, but because they are meandering and poorly organised.  It is somewhat rare to find a paragraph in which he sticks to the subject at hand.
3)  Related to #2 is the lack of argumentation in the book.  Williams often makes sweeping and brazen assertions without one shred of argumentation, especially in his account of human moral psychology in the chapter dealing with Kant and in his conclusion in the last chapter.  Such argumentation is what, ultimately, separates philosophy from mere dogma, and is conspicuously absent in much of Williams' work.
4)  The last problem is with his philosophy itself.  He purports to remove morality from ethics, but leaves no account of what ethics is without morality.  The best description that we get in the book of ethics without morality is that it is "vague" (p. 6) and that ethical considerations are merely one type of practical consideration. (p. 182)  In the final analyss, Williams tells us that we should act how we want to act because some of our desires are more important than ethical considerations, but each agent must decide for himself, without any guidance from anything but teh agent's own dispositions, which of his desires are able to override ethics, or whatever is left of ethics after Williams is done with it.  In fact, what would even count as an ethical consideration is unclear.

This book is largely unsatisfying.  Why should I slog through 200 pages of sub-par philosophy to find an ethical account less sophisticated than that of most two year olds?  At least two year olds are clear in their reasoning.  The reason that I even gave this book 3 stars is that it is important to know ones enemy and Williams' perspective on morality, if not ethics, is rather interesting.  Finally, I must say that, as much as I disagree with the other reviewers, one is absolutely correct in recommending "Internal and External Reasons."  That paper is everything that this book isn't, as well as being Williams' most important contribution to moral philosophy.  It is also quite crucial in gaining a detailed understanding of Williams' positions in this book.
1609133
First, if you're looking for some sort of academic introduction to Marxism, and its various interpretations, this is not it. What this is, is a basic introduction to the politics of the International Socialist Organization. Of course, they would tell you that this is true Marxism; i'm just warning you going in that this is one interpretation of Marx, to say nothing of the various strains of 'post-Marxism'.

Having said that, it is a reasonable and accessible introduction to Marx, Engels, and subsequent thinkers in the Trotskyist tradition. At times it can be quite simplistic (i.e. the views presented on human nature, history, and anthropology are questionably speculative for the 21st century), but those flaws are perhaps excusable in an introduction.  The first three chapters introduce Marxist materialism in its historical context, followed by a very brief introduction to Marxian economics.  After this, the book turns to revolutionary strategy, taking the ISO line of working class revolution, against bourgeois political parties and social democratic reformism.  The book then presents a Trotskyist take on the Russian Revolution, "how the revolution was lost" to Stalinism, the "myth of state socialism", and the need for international socialism.

My main objection to this book is that I thought I would be getting more about Marx's thought (i.e. 'Capital' is barely touched upon), and less about Trotsky and the International Socialist tradition.  I should have figured since the ISO's D'Amato was the author, but still, for a book plastered with Marx and titled 'The Meaning of Marxism', it seemed like a bait and switch.
1282444
This book is definitely geared toward the general reader. It is simple, short, organized, and accessible. After presenting a short bio of each philosopher and describing his thought, Johnston poses a few questions for the reader to ponder, interacting with the philosopher and his philosophy. It is a better book for someone with little or no exposure to philosophy than for one with previous study in the area. Overall, though, it's just not that great of an intro to philosophy, in my opinion.

So as not to leave you without recourse however, if I were suggesting an excellent basic summarization of influential western philosophers, I would point folks to The Journey of Discovery by William Lawhead. Since the 3rd edition is much cheaper than the fourth, I'll link to it, but it's only available used:&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Voyage-of-Discovery-A-Historical-Introduction-to-Philosophy-Thomson-Advantage-Books/dp/0495127795/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy (Thomson Advantage Books)</a>. There's a link to the newer edition on that page. The only difference is that Lawhead's book is a basic textbook-- it's longer and covers many more philosophers. However, I have never encountered anyone or anything that distills robust philosophy down to a few accessible pages and makes more connections among the projects of various philosophers than does Lawhead. Even if you picked the same philosophers from Lawhead's book as Johnston covers, I think your time would be much better spent, and more enjoyably spent as well.

ok, back to Johnston's book. In response to some other reviewers' queries, I can assure you that Marx and Derrida are philosophers and influential ones at that. Yes, Marx has had immeasurable impact on economic and political theory and praxis, which most philosophers have not. However, philosophy has shaped most political thought, and political philosophy is a sub-area. Derrida is certainly a well-known literary critic, famous in what is known as "continental" (often French and German) philosophy. However, because of their far-reaching impact throughout philosophy, both of these men are fine contributions to this book given its scope and purpose.

I'm actually a bit more surprised he chose to include Spinoza, but it's probably due to the unique though of Spinoza and Johnston's attempt at diversity. And of course Hegel is noticeably absent, but he inspired Marx's thought, and perhaps Johnston discusses Hegel some in the chapter on Marx. I don't recall specifically at this point. If Johnston delved more into 20th century philosophy, he would probably begin to include women, but given the history of western philosophy, women are not featured previous to the 20th century. And this very clearly is a history of western philosophy -- perhaps that would have been a more appropriate title.
1044153
A common frustration in arguing with someone about, well, anything, is the problem of different assumptions and conflicting foundational beliefs--especially when we aren't even aware they are in conflict. I tend to want to address the underlying issues first, to distill them down to their fundamental essence. Mitch Stokes does exactly that in what is basically a layman's summary of the work of well-known Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

Leveraging Plantinga (and a few others) to do the heavy intellectual lifting, Mitch--very ably and eloquently--addresses the very building blocks of human inquiry: What is reason? What makes something rational? What is a belief, and how do we develop them? Do beliefs have to rational in order to be reasonable or legitimate? What does secular humanist and atheistic thought contribute to these discussions, and are those contributions ultimately rational or reasonable?

Stokes handles all of these topics and more, comprehensively and readably.  He shows that the recent spike in angry polemics from of the "New Atheists" is inversely proportional to the strength of their arguments and assumptions. It turns out (surprise!) that atheism and methodological naturalism end up being intellectually self-defeating. Even rationality itself ultimately depends on a divine designer. In addition, Stokes shows that the so-called "problem of evil" ends up being a greater problem for atheists than theists.

The book is clear and concise for such difficult topics, and I highly recommend A Shot of Faith (To The Head) to believer and skeptic alike. It will challenge assumptions and understanding on both sides, and will hopefully lead to fruitful conversation.

---------------------------------------
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 : "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

(On a side note, when it comes to this issue, the FTC can go jump in a lake.)
---------------------------------------
3164999
"Perspectives" functions as a good first introduction to the different world views that are competing for our allegiance in the twentieth and now in the twenty-first century. In this book of some 240 pages, Christian theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, along with Bill Watkins, introduce the basic tenets of seven different world views. These include theism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, finite godism, and polytheism. Each of these perspectives is given somewhere between 25-40 pages. In a fairly limited amount of space, it is impossible to go into great detail in describing and evaluating these different world views. But Geisler does a good job of summarizing them and evaluating them, assessing their strengths and weaknesses. Naturally, Geisler's purpose is in part to show the superiority of Christian theism to other world views. And he does a good job of this. But he is also fair to the other world views that he examines. The last chapter of the book is titled, "Choosing a World View." In it, Geisler gives the criteria that we should apply in determining whether a particular worldview is acceptable.

Scholars who have studied world religions will already be familiar with most of the material in this book. However, it's a nice introduction for beginners.
4294307
This book is well-written and engaging.  But its argument, in my view, is far from compelling.  It is often conjectural, and it depends on premises that are at least seriously questionable. These latter include a reassertion of the (by now) old assertion of the "form criticism" school that the Gospels were composed at a time quite far removed from the period when the events of Jesus' life and death took place, and hence are more likely to reflect the particular concerns of their authors instead of what actually transpired at the time of Jesus.
322499
This is *not* a book about specific events or eras in history. It is, as the title suggests, an argument that historians need to reconsider how history today is being done. It is very tightly and nicely argued. Whether you agree or not, it is a pleasure to read, and a great resource if nothing else. And I would say it's a good deal more than that, even though I do not entirely agree with the authors' case.

I urge potential readers to search online for more from David Armitage and Jo Guldi regarding "History Manifesto." There is a website for the book, including a blog and related material. Well worth the search before buying here!
2534918
The book contains much interesting, moving and no doubt correct information about its subject. That is valuable in itself.
Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't just offer information. They also argue for a certain thesis: 'Spilled water cannot be replaced in a smashed jug' (Arab proverb), and so any idea of retrospective pardons should be strongly opposed.
The book's presentation of its thesis is so slovenly, that it would be a fine text for use for practice on a course in critical thinking. Suppose you want to form your own opinion on this controversy. Here are a few examples of the kind of obstacles Corns and Hughes-Wilson put in your way:
1 There are gratuitous sneers here and there about their opponents who advocate pardons. The reader has to be alert to separate sneer from substance.

2 In presenting one of the main pillars of their argument they rely mainly on Arab proverbs and poetic aphorisms such as 'The past is another country'. The thoughtful reader will hope to find a clearly reasoned statement of the authors' position on the tricky question of moral judgements about other times and places. But once you cut away the book's vague rhetoric on this point there is nothing left.

3 There are some whopping contradictions to be found if you keep your eyes open. For example.
The authors seem to be saying, albeit rather impressionistically, that the executions were basically OK by the standards of the time. However, the jacket of the book states that the executions were 'Controversial even at the time'.
On the issue whether executions were necessary because they discouraged mass desertion that might otherwise have occurred, sometimes the authors seem to be suggesting that this was indeed so, and in other places the opposite.
4 There is also scope for spotting important inferences from the facts which the authors unaccountably fail to draw. They state (p. 103) that 'the death penalty was used only in a minute percentage of cases', and they back this up with ample evidence. Do they conclude that those few who were executed were therefore treated unfairly - perhaps even so unfairly that they deserve a pardon? No, Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't seem to notice that this possible line of debate even exists. As a reader, you will have to spot it for yourself.
On a frivolous note, I can't resist recording that the acknowledgement at the beginning to 'our eagle-eyed copy-editor' contains both a spelling mistake and a punctuation mistake in the same sentence.
In short, recommended to two classes of reader: those who want a library of all the main works on this subject; and those who want something for a good workout of the critical thinking faculties.
Definitely not for someone who wants just one thoroughly reliable work on the subject.
3099702
This introductory book, by a moral philosopher, focuses on the implications of evolutionary theory for our view of morality. It deals with such issues as the evolution of morality; the moral implications of evolutionary psychology; social darwinism and eugenics; the naturalistic fallacy; and the role of genes in behaviour. The book gives a comprehensive overview of the controversies, reviews the classical examples, and outlines Levy's own view. It is well written. Levy does a better job than most critics of evolutionary psychology in presenting and discussing this position and carefully analyzes and rejects the simple dichotomies (either genes or environment, either nature or nurture etc.) that so often distort the discussion. Yet, the book is not without problems. At places it lacks analytical depth. A discussion of different notions of altruism (genetic, psychological, ethical etc.) would have been very helpful, and a one sentence rejection of the idea that one commits a fallacy if one replaces 'is' by 'ought to be' is too short, really. Another serious problems is Levy's tendency to conflate evolutionary and genetic approaches. In the first chapter, Levy, erroneously, associates eugenics with Darwinism and later in the book he conflates evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. Levy occasionally succumbs to name calling ('Darwinian fundamentalist') and straw man arguments. The views of scientists should not be extracted from news papers, as Levy does in chapter 5. A more serious distortion is the equation of the evolutionary psychologists' view that the alleged fact that behaviours (such as rape) and social inequalities have a genetic and evolutionary background does not justify those behaviours and inequalities, with the straw men's position that the claims of evolutionary psychology are morally irrelevant. Finally, Levy indicates his own position, but his arguments are, imho, underdeveloped. For those who know the subject these shortcomings are relatively minor, but they might mislead beginners.
2235320
What a wonderful little book! As the `convenor' stated in his forward, there is no malignancy in the arguments put and a degree of bonhomie prevails in the discussion. Why the debate has such a teleological title is odd, but perhaps it is a concession by Hitchens given the directness of the title that helped prompt this debate. Why the convenor offered a view is also odd, but perhaps, again, this is a reminder that the gloves are never really off.

At the outset, this book is unlikely to change any views - it is predominantly those readers who are interested in the role of religion in modern society, and have views, who will read it. It is our inclination to have firm opinions on religion that will ensure it remains a perennial topic. It is even a challenge to offer a review for such a book, being acutely aware that the `helpful' rating, offered quite appropriately by the company for the vast majority of publications, can become a poll on the view held rather than the merit of the review. I should add that, perhaps because of the civility of the debate, its reviews have attracted less of this reaction so far.

Two features of this debate are welcome. The eloquence and persuasiveness of both opponents are compelling but differences in their style are stark. One is structured and targeted at the general debate, remaining intellectual and invoking logical methods but, through his exhaustive approach, risks leaving low hanging fruit for his opponent. The other is strategic, introducing a little flattery, humour and ridicule to ease through tight spots, and keeping his powder dry for the later part of the debate. This is not a criticism, as his opponent is very adept at similar strategy in other writings.

As readers would expect, Hitchens is more inclined to quote broadly from the literature while Wilson relies more on one obvious text for his evidence. Wilson tends to pursue recursive arguments and only needs to `get on the pulpit', sometimes introducing extraneous points that would weigh against him in a normal debate in order to avoid Hitchens' knock-out blow. Hitchens raises Socrates' daemon to reprimand Wilson for glib snipes, presenting a valid point which was a joy to read but too intellectually ethereal to score a point.

On the other hand, Wilson uses an analogy of investigating the blame for spilled milk and suggesting that you wouldn't question the milk because "it's the accident". While humorous and down-to-Earth, examination indicates that this analogy does not fit the argument. In fairness, this was the final round and Hitchens did not get a response.