philosophy of law Reviews & Opinions
Submit philosophy of law review or read customer reviews:
100 Reviews Found
Watch philosophy of law video reviews and related movies:
See Natural Law Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #34 on youtube.
See Introduction to the philosophy of law on youtube.
See What Is the Philosophy of Law? on youtube.
See Introduction to Legal Philosophy on youtube.
See Where do laws come from? (Philosophy of Law, Part 1 - Professor Aeon Skoble) on youtube.
See Obligation to Obey the Law - Political | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY on youtube.
See Should You Obey the Law? - Philosophy Tube on youtube.
See Jurisprudence - Natural Law on youtube.
Scroll down to see all opinions ↓
Bernard Schaffer is a very interesting guy. His is an outstanding writer of both fiction & non. He is a police detective. He led another life as a kid actor which he tells in another essay, "BJ Schaffer is Dead" about serving his sentence as a kid star on TV. As I said: one interesting in this short essay, he tells of his journey to & some glimpses of, his life as a police officer. It is a amazing piece of writing & is both inspiring & honest. He tells it like it is. At least like it is for him. This is not a story of "action & adventure" (although it contains bits of both), but more just man telling about why & how he became a police officer and what it means to him. You feel it. At least I do, when I read it.I say, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have become of fan of Schaffer's fiction & felt I had to to read this. I was fortunate that it was free when I got it in the Kindle Store. It is 99 cents right now. I had not yet read any of his other work yet when I got this. I say now that I have read this, and some of his other work, I would gladly pay a buck for this essay. More, for a collection of his essays, I would gladly pay $10 (and I really have fun reading well-written essays/articles. Especially those taken from the writer's life).It is a refreshing to read a writer who writes from his heart, while still maintaining his craft. I am sucker for amazing writing in almost any genre. Bernard J Schaffer is an perfect writer & storyteller, whether telling stories from his life or those he creates from whole cloth (or wherever he gets them from).Here is an excerpt from his essay "BJ Schaffer is Dead" that gives a amazing taste of the flavor of his writing, & is a nice segue to Method of the Fighter (it is from the latest paragraph of that essay, which you can search easily using any amazing find engine):"Me? I'm a guy who worked at a gas station to create ends meet while I went to the Police Academy. I scrubbed toilets, worked landscaping and mopped laboratories late at night. At 34 years old, I'm a police detective who makes his living putting poor people in dark places. I'm a father to two children, and I can tell you that their love and admiration means more than the vacant adulation of the masses on any level."Not only do I believe him, I feel I learn from him, both about writing & about life. That is valuable. Check out his work.
This is a super simple and fast read that I was needed to obtain for my Policing class. I'm not interested in becoming a police officer so I was dreading having to read the book. However, the author uses a lot of humor and statistical evidence to back up his claims which I enjoyed. He actually at one point says reading academic things makes him wish to hurl himself out a window so the writing style/language is much more laid back which makes it an simple read. Also, I live in PA and the author is a police officer in PA so that created the book automatically a small more interesting. As a side note, I loved the Red Pill chapter. Create sure to read it when you obtain the book.
I stumbled on this book one late night working that long 12 hr shift. Not only did it capture my attention, but I also blew through it within 2 hrs. This short essay did wonders for me. It relit that fire inside me that was starting to flicker. If you don't know what I am referring to, that is because you haven't been on the job long enough to understand that statement. I was yearning for more when I read the latest page. The author answered the call and added a few fresh chapters with this fresh copy. B Schaffer has a fresh fan, who is also an avid reader along with over 10 years policing under my belt. I'm currently reading Superbia and that is one awesome work of art. Real Blue Line....that will stay with me forever. If you are looking for some direction or answers that just can not be answered, begin this book and read. Not once, but a few times. The answers you are looking for and our purpose is right in front of our eyes, thanks to B Schaffer.
Kindle ver has some amazing and up to date information (21 July 2016). His perspective on the black lives matter movement really created me think hard on what it all truly means. I am not in law enforcement, though I am a senior in college pursuing Criminal Justice so this book is a amazing insight as to what I want. I am also a USAF veteran, and a lot of the things he points out about people and leadership are hurdles I saw while in the Air Force. This book is a amazing tool for anyone who wants an lesson about leadership vs. management.
I purchased this book to gain a better understanding of police. While no one source of information is the only valid source of info, this book provides valuable information and insight. You won't become a police expert in reading the book, but no single book will create you an expert. You will gain a larger view, see more of their street-smart globe and this has value. It is worth the cash buying and the time reading. Thanks Mr. Shaffer.
I was surprised that the book was physically small. I know that it would be a short book but I assumed that the book size was that of the typical Oxford/Rutledge university publications. The print is a size or two smaller than usual (14 point) so it is somewhat physically difficult to read. The material is presented very well and covers a lot of locations of the philosophy of law. I would gladly pay $2-3 more if the book size were to be slightly larger so the font is a typical university printing.
Highly recommended! The only possible flaw are the few paragraphs of each chapter that is sort of hard to understand, but those don’t hurt, just skip them. Overall, it’s a unbelievable work of jurisprudence.
A classical case of :"... it is all there in a nutshell". I do know a bit about law and ethics and I do not believe that a better primer has ever been written. Perfect choice for anyone with no time for the full 600 pages of John Rawls "Theory of Justice" or related textbooks but who never the less needs a top notch quality introduction to the subject
The text of the book can be shortened in order to justify being called "a very short introduction :) The text is repetitions with some of the repeated paragraphs being almost identical. Apart from that the book presents a amazing summary of existing legal theories.
Super useful info for someone who is trying to obtain themselves together and obtain serious about entertainment law. Does everything work? I can't say- only time will tell for me. For now, it's still amazing information.
I read this book cover to cover, expecting to learn something more than what I could search on my own online. Boy was I disappointed. A mentor of mine recommended this book, as I wanted to spend my 2L summer learning all about entertainment law. I take it that he never read this book before telling me rst, there wasn't any fresh info here. Everything written could have been found online without having spent the cash for the book. That really disappointed me because I feel cheated. I wanted to learn but I just spent cash on an unhelpful, uninformative, poorly done Internet , there are a bunch of links in the appendix section, which is more than half of the book, by the way, and some of those aren't even correct. Is it that hard to create sure your links are accurate? Apparently.Overall, I am very disappointed by the purchase. I could have used the $10 on a various book that might have had some actual info in it. Serves me right, I guess. If you are a law student looking at this review, don't waste your time on this book. Google will tell you the same garbage for free.
Very informative for anyone thinking about going to grad school. She also provided resources to search a job and various organizations to join. It's a bible for law students. Amazing read
Amazing book. Amazing author. Ms. Thomas knows the industry and how to maneuver it. I highly recommend it for law students, practitioners, or anyone interested in getting into the professional entertainment industry.
Starting with an introductory chapter on la w and existing legal systems, the book continues as a clearly written exposition of the most necessary locations of law, each one discussed by primarily focusing on an interesting case similar to that area, followed by a critical examination of the challenges and implications that exist in the case, the corresponding decision(s)and some similar cases. Legal terms and the relevant laws are clearly explained for a reader without any law background and intriguing questions are asked during the discussions, some of which are answered, while some are left as meal for thoughtI think this is an perfect book for anybody who wants to know why law is such a fascinating subject for Intellectual enquiry, and how and why it is not just a set of dry rules to be followed mechanically.
Never thought of colors this method but can definitely see the truth behind it!! Simple read and well thought out. Understanding the importance of colors is advantageous in both the private and professional areas
The descriptions for each color are 1-2 pages and the author doesn’t go into much detail at all. The descriptions are a bit repetitive and generic. It reads more like a horoscope than a text book or reference book. I didn’t obtain very much out of it but it was only $0.99 so it’s not a large loss.
A amazing perspective to support understand colors as similar to both spiritual awareness and daily life! It is simple to read , contemplate and integrate with your life.
After reading this book, I will definitely look at all the colors around me in a various ‘light’! I definitely recommend this book to everyone!
I feel like this was a very informative read. It was an enjoyable method to learn more about color meanings as well as the chakras.
Interesting and simple read. Highly recommended. Now I have a fresh perspective and appreciation over colors. A amazing find.
Clearly explains the connection of colors to the body’s chakras and how that impacts heath as a whole. Enjoyed reading this book and would highly recommend it.
This is the best app! I love how amazing it is at putting things into perspective. It makes it so easy to use the Law of Attraction and breaks down how yo use it and how it works in so a lot of various ways. This is a must have app!
Every action causes a reaction And maybe it is possible that the universe is working with us. It really depends on our mindset. Be kind, support and respect our elders, take care of others and animals whenever its possible. All the amazing you do comes back to you so remember to pray hard to God what it is your heart desires.
This book offers an introductory exposition of the English public law, which is ideal for the reader that is looking for a general overview of the field either as a newcomer or as someone already familiarized with it but wants to look it [email protected]#$%!& has all the virtues of every amazing introduction: is fairly short, systematic and straightforward. But it has, at the same time, other virtues which are rare in clear and brief introductory texts like this one. It gives an acc of public law that is lively reflexive and it is informed by an acute historical consciousness. In every necessary point (the doctrine of sovereignty of Parliament, the Ministerial Accountability, and so on) it offers a picture of the evolution of the matter without hiding the begin possibilities and ambiguities behind the actual state of the is not indeed a cold sub specie aeternitatis exposition of the subject, but one that gives due attention to the struggles and risks behind every step of the evolution it reconstructs. This book situates in this method the show state of the English public law in the formation and evolution of the British constitution, and situates itself, as a study on public law, within the English scholarly tradition public law and its transformations. It is an opinionated but well founded introduction that not only takes a justified position in every necessary debate on the subject, but it presents to the reader, from the very beginning, its general approach (crucially when sustaining that the necessary aspect of the English constitution is not its 'unwritten' but its 'political' character). Finally, the book not only embraces all the main aspects of the British constitution, but it includes a bibliographical essay with a careful selection of sources on the matters discussed in each chapter.
It is one of the best books to be read by every law student. Certainly, it is one of the illustrious law book in our time, but one should be cautious not to misunderstand its weaknesses, as well. As illustrious it is, so conceptually fragile too it is. It not only defends, but also successfully brings legal positivism at the center of legal analysis; however, without any uniform and determined framework of positivism defended and established. I am one of the admirers as well as critic of the theory of Hart, which this book is the most representative one. On the whole, I love this book and have read a lot of times.
This book was the center of my law school course on jurisprudence (legal philosophy). It was the best (and created the most sense) of any book I read in law school. I won't be surprised if 500 years from now law students are still reading this book alongside Aristotle and the other greats.
The book itself is a classic, of course, and my copies over the years have usually disappeared – having been loaned out to students. So it is nice to have this pristine copy after I have retired. And this is an elegant anniversary reissue of the original, with extra introductory and scholarly material. First-rate.
I picked up this book as it was needed reading for class. I had never done much reading or study on Jurisprudence, but HLA Hart is the guy to read these days for anybody interested in the topic. The reading is a small dry, but more enjoyable than I expected. I wouldn't have read this book if it wasn't for class, but I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to study it. (But I still wouldn't recommend this to anyone except people who have an interest in the topic.)
The Sovereign is the People. They create laws under their own control and freedom. Sovereignty is first; the Law is second. The People must search a method to implement directly their will. Direct democracy that exercises the power of the People is a amazing idea whose time has come.
Jim Jarmusch's work can be either intimidating or off-putting, and in equal measure, to cinephiles because it feels so relaxed--almost as if it was a spur-of-the-moment, off-the-cuff precursor of reality-TV, an inside-joke with everyone involved slipping a nod and a wink, as if on a drunken dare, a mickey of JD passed back and forth along with a package of Marlboros. This brought to mind a lot of amazing memories of one of the oddest residents of The Criterion Collection: 'Fishing with John' (an exemplary and hilarious six-part mini-series in which John Lurie goes on fishing expeditions with five American cinematic greats, his partners-in-crime here, Jarmusch and Tom Waits amongst them; one that I'd love to see both obtain a blu make batter as well as more episodes, now 25 years later). Also, clearly Jarmusch had a fine rapport with his actors, for this is by far the best and most restrained work I have ever seen from Roberto Benigni. One of Jarmusch's more atypical films, 'Ghost Dog: The Method of the Samurai', is still my private favourite, but this is right up there alongside. It would also create an intriguing double-bill with Jeff Nichols' stellar, though more serious in tone, latest film, 'Mud'.
Fantastic, thorough and technical, yet simple to understand review of the Airbus ptain Bill Palmer has been an Airbus Captain and Check Airman virtually from the beginning, and has literally written the book—and operator's manuals—on Airbus Flight systems. While this book is mainly aimed at the actual Airbus pilot, I believe it has been written in plain enough English that the "virtual," "sim," or "armchair" pilot will obtain a lot out of this as well.When I wrote an Airways Magazine article analyzing the Air Asia 8501 accident ("Understanding Air Asia 8501"—April, 2016 issue,) I brought Captain Palmer in as a consultant. Although I have been an Airbus pilot for nearly 25 years now, nevertheless, Captain Palmer thoroughly "schooled" me on a lot of aspects of its design, function, and ptain Palmer is THE authority on the functional design of Airbus systems, and this volume will enlighten the Airbus pilot, fresh and experienced, on the many, often complex, aspects of its ngratulations, Captain, on another perfect work, well-crafted!
Outstanding review. A must-read for 330 and 320 pilots. The issue is that you learn these systems in initial training, and then they never obtain addressed in this level of detail again. You owe it to yourself to continue challenging yourself, to remain technically proficient and hold up your hand-flying skills. This publication plays a vital part in that.
Maudmarie Clark's analysis while brilliant, and even more trenchant than, say, Schacht, created for a dismal read. One had to power thru the material like an icebreaker plowing the artic circle. It was related to reading Bertrand Russell. Watching paint dry is more stimulating. Schacht is far better writer. But hey, such reads come with the turf.
This was one of the key books I used in my thesis on Nietzsche,along with another book on Nietzsche and Truth, John T.Wilcox's "Truth and Value in Nietzsche". If you are pursuing the same path, I suggest you read Wilcox first, then Clark. Wilcox' arguments are more lucid, taking a very common sensical approach to adducing Nietzsche's final k's book, however, deals with the development of Nietzsche's ideas from the start, with the much quoted (and perhaps poorly understood) unpublished essay, "On Truth and Lie in the Extra-moral Sense" through to his final "neo-Kantian" position by the time he publishes his six stages in the evolution of positions about truth.I sympathize with the reviewers who felt the book was difficult and perhaps confused, but I unconditionally deny that Dr. Clark validates her positions by "cherry picking." Nietzsche's writing is marvelously lucid from one sentence to the next, but you may often complete one of his books with no clear idea of what he himself really nce I read and browsed a lot of various books on Nietzsche, I can say with some authority that Mr. Clark's book is considered one of the best on this particular aspect of Nietzsche's thought by others who write on the subject. But I would certainly not go so far as to say it was the best on Nietzsche overall, since it simply does not addres a wide range of Nietzschean topics. Walter Kaufmann's classic is still king of the hill on Nietzsche commentary. But if you are doing any projects on Nietzsche, this is a amazing book to own, on Kindle (although I used a hard copy.)The Bibliography is especially good, if only because it limits itself to material written in the latest 30 years (except for the obvious references to Plato and Kant.)
I began this book with no little trepidation. I am not generally fond of Nietzsche, but have recently felt that he at least deserved to be engaged with systematically. I have been reading his works and I picked up this book on an off chance, knowing small about it except that Clark sought to systematically show Nietzsche as an anti-metaphysical author. And in doing this, she highlights his strengths and weaknesses.I appreciate her sophisticated rebuttal of much current and past Nietzsche scholarship, especially the mis-reading of him by the so-called 'post-structuralists'/'deconstructionists'. Her critique of their absolute relativism, and Nietzsche's eventual rejection of that in favor of a radical perspectivism, which at bottom is founded on a kind of neo-Kantianism, won me over to the value of the book. And that kind of thing is important when you slog through the first two chapters, which may be necessary, but which are also e failure I search most interesting, however, ultimately undermines her own argument and releases Nietzsche from any kind of coherence in relation to truth. She basically premises her reading of Nietzsche at a key point contra Magnus on the question of whether Nietzsche is arguing versus 'truth as the whole'. She argues that he is not and that Nietzsche was familiar with no philosopher who would have argued as such. It is here that I must reject her argument, for Hegel very much championed this notion of 'truth is the whole' and Nietzsche seems, contrary to Clark's otherwise well-thought out scholarship, not only familiar with Hegel, but also in debate with Hegel throughout much of his work. Hegel is the hidden text to Nietzsche as Aristotle is the hidden text to Hegel's Philosophy of recognizing this, not only does Clark's reading of Nietzsche unravel, but, IMO since Clark is largely right in her reading of Nietzsche as a neo-Kantian, Nietzsche , Nietzsche was infamously hostile to 'the craving for consistency' as a tag of the weak person, so the Nietzscheans out there will have a back door through which to escape. But that is their condarily, I think that this unraveling causes issues for Clark's argument that Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence are non-metaphysical, or at least consistently so. However, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the argument, even when she is obliged to engage in gymanastics to sustain ly, this work really convinced me that the appropriation of Nietzsche by Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, etc. is not based upon Nietzsche's philosophical heritage, since they stop at his earliest work and effectively gloss over the rest of what Nietzsche writes. Rather, Nietzsche provides a radical re-affirmation of the role of intellectuals as privileged specialists. But Guy Debord knew the value of such people better than most, and the obnoxious politics which follow from such self-glamorization of the would-be revaluers of values.
I really admire the ambitiousness and courageousness of Clark's highly controversial readings of Nietzsche. It takes guts--and hard work--to defend her more outlandish claims, and I even admire the undercurrent of unmitigated contrariness that seems to motivate this aspect of her work ("Well, if everybody's going to say Nietzsche's anti-democratic, I'll say he's pro-democracy! Yes, that's the ticket!)Unfortunately, she just doesn't create a very amazing case for her more interesting views. Even when I agree with the conclusions, I search her arguments far-fetched or just silly. Take, e.g., her treatment of the puzzling and well-known section 36 of Beyond Amazing and Evil, where Nietzsche appears to seriously entertain the view that the globe is the will to power. Clark's solution to this admittedly problematic passage is to argue that Nietzsche inserts an argument and conclusion into his text that he disagrees with in order to present that he disagrees with it. You'd think the best method to present that would be to actually say so--or better yet, never to bring it up in the first any case, Clark does create a brave attempt to back up this reading, but ultimately it requires far too much cherry picking, twisting, and torturing of the text. By method of comparison, did you know that Nietzsche believes in God? It's true, he says so! "I" (p.20) "believe" (p.430) "in" (p.27) "God" (p.388)Ultimately, Clark's book suffers from the same issue as so a lot of interpretations (particularly the po-mo ones) do: her interpretation begins with what she wants Nietzsche to be, then forces him to be it.
While Nietzsche is certainly more known as a moral philosopher, or as some are certain to remark, an immoral philosopher, one finds a certain important connection between his moral philosophy and his epistemology (and naturally aesthetic, scientific, political thought too, its all very much connected). Thus it was with begin eyes that I began this work, as I knew Clark to be so very critical of much that Kaufmann, Wilcox, Derrida, Nehamas, and Schacht had written on Nietzsche. The majority of the work was overtly analytic, which I shall neither condemn nor praise at the moment. Clark did her best to demonstrate the faults of the aforementioned Nietzsche scholars insofar as Nietzsche himself would though there is much I could say regarding the opening chapters of the book, I shall refrain from such things, as I found them generally to be on target, insofar as Clark's exegetical work found what was important to help her claims. Whether or not I agree with them all is still under debate, for I question how much Nietzsche felt consistency was absolutely important for his early writings and ideas (look at The Birth of Tragedy or a later work like The Antichrist for examples of this, while each is brilliant in its own method they still lack scholarship all too often in exchange for Nietzsche's polemics). As Danto (I believe it was him) commented somewhere in his work though, one thing is certain with Nietzsche, you have truly not read him until you have found a contradiction to every statement he made. While this is not real in every case, there is a sense in which Nietzsche's maturing philosophy demonstrates this claim, which Clark seems to have dismissed at times. Granted, Clark does demonstrate that Nietzsche underwent such changes in his thought, as would be expected of a philosopher set on such an experimental taking Nietzsche to completely dismiss metaphysics Clark does herself a amazing injustice, for it forces her to radically reinterpret the will to power and the eternal recurrence. And in doing so she becomes guilty of a certain intellectual uncleanliness (as someone or another once called it). I wholeheartedly agree that the eternal recurrence is best understood not as a cosmological doctrine, but rather as something of an existential imperative (if such a thing exists). Nonetheless, as Nietzsche's Nachlass testifies, he may still have believed it to be demonstrable as a cosmological claim though he had yet to demonstrate it as such. But the will to power as anything but a metaphysical claim? As a theology professor of mine often said to me, thats just not happening. And it is within these two chapters, the latest two of the book, that Clark gets sloppy in her work. At one point she simply dismisses the text of Zarathustra as too metaphorical (the second to latest chapter) to cite in evidence, yet, come the latest chapter of the work, lo and behold, the metaphorical issues Zarathustra posed in the previous chapter disappear - citations abound. Naturally one asks, why should she do this? To support reinforce her point perhaps? Or to support her point by not introducing certain textual issues with her reading?As it is, do read the latest two chapters, on the will to power and the eternal recurrence respectively, with a careful eye and such inconsistent readings will become apparent. It was here then that I found fault with the book, which makes me wish to reread it and see how often this issue occurs. But that will have to wait until the semester ends. So, overall, a mostly consistent reading, with obvious faults, which, as Nietzsche himself would have said, reflects Clark's desires to create Nietzsche consistent. Is such consistency in Nietzsche possible though? Probably not, as his writings seem to attest, if not his experimental nature of going about his work. But then again, how much do I really know? To best understand Nietzsche, sit down with The Birth of Tragedy and read chronologically until you obtain to Ecce Homo, and then begin all over again.
This is possibly the best overall book ever written about Nietzsche. Several others have brilliant insights such as Martin Heidegger's Nietzsche which gives a strong interpretation of art as the only purpose and meaning of life, and debunks the pseudo-concept of the 'superman' as the modern CEO of globe technology, but completely misses Nietzsche's joke, which Clark does not, about the 'will to power' especially as a cosmological doctrine (something he toyed with seriously ONLY in the notebooks for years). Maudemarie Clark shows he created it into a trick upon the reader (amongst many!) in BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL (pp.218-227, esp.221-2, of her book). She starts her book by destroying the French deconstructionist 'irrationalist' ver of Nietzsche by demonstrating that he dropped this irrationalism early starting with HUMAN, ALL TOO HUMAN (originally dedicated to Voltaire), and coming to a completely rational stance in THE GENEOLOGY OF MORALS. She makes the brilliantly obvious point (so obvious it makes you feel stupid, but definitely goes versus the major trend of Nietzsche interpretation)that THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA was a novel, not a philosophical treatise or religious tract. Walter Kaufman implicitely created this same point by comparing it to ULYSSES and FINNEGAN'S WAKE. This essentially puts a logical question tag on 'eternal recurrence', 'will to power', and the 'superman' as distinct philosophical ideas and actually makes them literary concepts, a distinction postmodernists may entirely miss. She also, after having undermined most American commentators -- NOT Walter Kaufman --on Nietzsche by destroying the primary tenant of the French through applying the unimpeacheable arguments versus scepticism and cynicism (essentially, as the Cretan philosopher said, "All Cretans are liars", one must step somehow into a higher order of reality for that to be judged real or false)against Nehamas'perspectivism and Danto's, Schacht's, and Rorty's ultimately meaningless relativism. Nietzsche was in no method a relativist. But one must apprize from that something very various Hegel's systematic absolutism. He knew the validity of reason and reality as an absolutely alone individual (singulare tantum)very much like Heidegger. Maudemarie Clark has essentially brought Nietzsche back into the question tag he deliberately placed himself. But it is a meaningful question that is rational. Maudemarie Clark makes part of this point explicitely clear when she states that on the one hand Neitszche says he is an immoralist and 'means' it, but on the other hand quotes him as saying, "Honesty is the only virtue". Honesty presupposes consistency. Consistency presupposes rationality. To end on an interesting sidenote Ayn Rand also went through a related evolution to Nietzsche's. In her first edition of WE THE LIVING she preaches a populist ver of Nietzsche's 'immoralism', then renounces him later on as an irrationalist when she takes up the primacy of reason herself. She never realized she still followed his path to some extent even in ATLAS SHRUGGED.
My main issue with this book is that Clark is too analytical. The book reads like a thesis. She often "intellectulizes" her method too a point that is either obvious or that she could have gotten to in a lot less time and with more straight forward language. Don't obtain me wrong - she does have some insights into Nietzsche but they are few and far between. I actually thought that her chapter on the Eternal Recurrence was the best in the whole book. Overall, not that amazing a read.
This book is a series of essays on the subject of neo noir films, citing specific movies for topical treatment in each essay. Such as Memento, China Town, etc. Gives some clues on how Neo Noir differs specifically from classic noir. How the noir genre has changed since the classic era.Each "chapter" is basically its own essay on some aspect or interpretation of the Neo Noir genre. Haven't quite finished the book, but have liked the half I've read so ose who like this might also check out such titles as Tech-Noir: The Fusion of Science Fiction and Movie Noir,The Philosophy of Movie Noir) or Neo-Noir,Neo-Noir: The Fresh Movie Noir Style from Psycho to Collateral,Detours and Lost Highways: A Map of Neo-Noir and Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner. Haven't picked them up yet, but they all look a bit interesting.
Neo-noir movies incorporated the visual style, characterizations, and topic matter of the classic movie noir of the 1940s and '50s. But this latter movie genre was able to employ more advanced movie techniques; and with the replacement of the moralistic Production Code with the more flexible modern ratings system, neo-noir movie was able to add fresh dimensions of topic and visual matter. The 1974 "Chinatown" may be "the first authentic neo-noir," writes Richard Gilmore, professor of philosophy at a Minnesota college. The TV program "Miami Vice"--first program, September 1984--was set in the Amazing Miami zone for its "cycle of decline, decay, development, and renewal (invariably followed by further repetitions of the cycle) [which] affirmed the indeterminacy and contingency of the postmodern noir," as Stevens Sanders, emeritus professor of philosophy at a Massachusetts university writes. Thirteen essays by these and other philosophy professors relate neo-noir movies not only to the movie noir which preceded them, but also philosophical thoughts and ethical perspectives of Sartre, Plato, Kant, Kierkegaard, Marx, and others. Blade Runner, L. A. Confidential, The Onion Field, Parallax View, Dances With Wolves, and Raiders of the Lost Arc are among the movies analyzed as neo-noir or which include elements of this genre. This collection of essays is a companion of the editor Conard's "The Philosophy of Movie Noir."
As the title suggests, this book covers the philosophical background behind movies defined as neo-noir. Surprisingly this includes a huge number of movies most people wouldn't readily identity as Movie Noir. Blade Runner, Memento, A Easy Plan and the works of Quentin Tarantino and the Cohen Brothers are amongst some of the films that are analysed in depth. A lot of other films are touched upon including War Club, Minority Report, The Bourne Identity and a lot of others. The essays in this book give fresh insight into these films and are easily readable by those without any background in philosophy. I would highly recommend it.
I love The Law and have bought a lot of copies, but this particular book is not worth the paper it is printed on. For a book that is in the public domain and can be downloaded as a pdf, I expected a lot more. The font is tiny, the top margin is short and the bottom margin is long, and the paragraphs are smashed together. The final insult is seeing the original page numbers throughout the text. Don't buy this one!I purchased The Law (ISBN 978-1572460737) and it was a very nice r a free version: Google "The Law pdf mises" where you can access pdf, audio, and other formats.
Mr. Bastiat clearly defines amazing and proper law. The Law must apply to all the people; it must not provide an advantage to only some of the people. Also, The Law should not be a tool to forcibly redistribute resources/money from taxpayers to citizens deemed (by gov’t) to be in need. His definition of Legal Plunder is straightforward and powerful. It has given me a new, clear st US statutes (legislation) are Legal Plunder, especially since 1900. What would the US Code look like without all laws classified as Legal Plunder? It would be rational.
While I can't agree with everything Bastiat says (public education is not a poor thing), most is right on. Especially for someone writing 150 years ago! The government's sole role is the security of life, liberty, & property. Not to give us items which only ends up threatening Life, Liberty, and Property.
Bastiat's The Law has been around for a long time. I first read it several years ago, but purchased Kindle edition for reference and simple 'cut & paste' into other e Law is one of the most enlightening and easily understood essays on politics and economics. To the best of my knowledge, it is not yet needed reading in schools. The Law might be read in conjunction books by authors such as Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Unlike Utopian socialist writers, Bastiat's analysis of political coercion of the economic community and their effects on the nation do not require a amazing deal of faith or hope and change to be understood.