Read the conceptual foundations of transitional justice reviews, rating & opinions:Check all the conceptual foundations of transitional justice reviews below or publish your opinion.
100 Reviews Found
This got placed without my intention. Something in your www service is cheating me. I've been a powerful Amazon customer but now I can't search any method to obtain out of that fix and am seriously considering quitting use of your facility. You don't seem to any kind of a phone contact that would let me to address the problem.
Kellert examines the challenges that a deterministic view of the globe faces in light of chaos and quantum theory. After a brief overview of chaos theory, he starts to describe its impact upon our ability to predict systems. This leads into the challenges presented to the traditional scientific view of the globe as being deterministic--like a film where if one knows the current state of a system and all the applicable laws of nature than one can know the state of the system at any time in the future or past just by working through the differential equations. He then explores how this lack of determinism leads to a fresh view of how we identify if we "understand" something. Finally, he examines the biases in science that led us to systematically ignore research into chaotic spite being a little book, Kellert's writing style is dense and verbose. He approaches the dialog from a vary formal thesis statements approach where he introduces each chapter, outlines each section, re-introduces the segment, summarizes the segment, than summarizes the chapter. Not that this is a 'bad' approach, but it can be tedious. Kellert often takes three or four sentences to say what could be place more elegantly into a single one.Overall, I would still recommend this book to anyone who reads about chaos theory and then questions the overall implications. Also, it is excellent ammunition for anyone working with traditional scientists who wish everything to be place into a neatly wrapped box with a nice tidy bow.
The author investigates the question: with all the research (and hype) in chaos theory, what has been the actual impact on our understanding of the world? I give the book 5 stars for completing it's stated mission, being readable and enjoyable, and for not pandering to a llert approaches this question from a philosophical, but down-to-earth, view. From the start, this is certainly not a "gee-whiz" hop-on-the-bandwagon book. In fact, the prologue begins: "Chaos theory is not as interesting as it sounds. How could it be?"Yet, Kellert is not out to dismiss chaos theory, but rather to create sense of what the implications of chaos theory are. Unpredictability and determinism are two such subjects potentially affected by chaos theory. Quantum mechanics is another subject influenced by chaos theory. And later in the book he ponders the historical question: why did it take so long for nonlinear dynamics (chaotic systems) to come under study?There is very small math. The intended audience seems to be those who have some notion of chaos theory already, and although an introductory chapter is included, it would be helpful to understand conceptually what a Lyapunov exponent is and what bifurcation e book is footnoted sufficiently but not overdone. It is heavily (but not annoyingly) referenced with everyone from Poincare to Prigogine. Despite the years that have passed since initial publication, I do not think this book has become obsolete. Another method to say this is: chaos theory (and it's results) is still not the mind-shattering revolution that some have created it out to be.If you have some science and math background and have been asking yourself "So, just what the heck does all this talk about chaos theory really mean??", then this book is for you.
I found this book well written but too technical. It had advanced math in it that totally confused me. It would be amazing for a Physics major, but not the average person. I was a Chemistry major. This book is amazing for the advanced student but not the beginner.
I was introduced to quantum mechanics in a general chemistry course, Schrodinger's Equation. This was watered down so as not to cause too much fright. Later, in graduate optics courses which emphasized wave front analysis, we attempted to delve into the double slit phenomenon. But always the emphasis was on understanding and designing optical systems, we never delved very deeply into quantum mechanics. Certainly we never got into action at a distance. As media reports of the Chinese work on encryption of particles over amazing distances, I came to realize I knew almost nothing about quantum physics and decided to look into it. Quantum Physics, an overview is a very useful book for gaining an insight into the very strange globe of quantum physics. You will not come to an understanding of this subject because I doubt anyone does understand it. But you wi become conversant with the topic and likely able to create your method through articles on the subject. Well written and enormously interesting.
For both physicists and non-physicists alike, if you would like to obtain a better understanding of the meaning and mysteries of the quantum globe that underlie the mathematics then you could not do better than this book. The author has taken particular care to explain the meaning and concepts without the complex mathematics but without oversimplification. An outstanding experience for anyone with a curiosity about what our perception of reality is built upon.
I have been searching for years, actually decades, for an appropriate resource to learn quantum physics. Too advanced. Oversimplified. This book nails it. For the reasonably scientifically literate reader, minimal to no prior knowledge of the topic is assumed by the author who goes into an impressive amount of depth.
Marco Masi's Quantum Physics (2nd edition, 2019) is a very interesting and valuable addition to the already existing literature. However, it is tough reading for the general e author assures us (p. 10) that "for those few parts where some mathematical description is unavoidable, a fast mathematical primer has been added in the appendix so that no one is left behind". In fact, as a person without significant mathematical ability or latest background (I completed my high school math a lot of decades ago), I found most of the appendix much too difficult. Nor could I follow the numerous equations throughout the book. A glossary of terms and symbols would have been very helpful but was unfortunately me ten per cent of the pages in the text were unintelligible to me: notably pages 92-96; much of 108-113 and 153-154; 205-207 (photon entanglement); much of 255-262 (path integrals and Feynman diagrams); 266-270 (the Mach-Zehnder interferometer); 281-284 (interaction experiments); and 285-289 (the 'delayed choice' experiments).On the other hand, I was able to profit greatly from the rest of the text, although it was hard work. I had to reread most of the book a lot of times before the primary concepts finally began to sink in. An necessary strength of the book is that the author repeatedly goes over these primary concepts, albeit each time from a various angle or point of view - a very effective didactic approach.
The book is deep enough to be fair includes the important minimum of math because this is quantum physics!It shows you WHY better than all or almost all the other famous may be hard going for beginners only because the field is unusual, to say the least, and the book is deep.
Having seemed the ideal candidate to have fun this book as someone who studied Intro to Quantum Mechanics several decades ago, with the requisite math background to understand the basics, I was hoping this would be a nice refresher. Alas. The English is that of someone who clearly does not speak English as a first language and trying to explain difficult concepts is just a non-starter. The use of commas is profligate and the syntax is strange in parts. The discussion quickly wades into detail that will leave most readers, even those with some advanced math, a bit baffled. And it is no support when the author/editor states in the first few pages that Goethe and Newton were contemporaries when the former was born 20 years after the latter was dead. Like saying Lady Gaga and Hitler were contemporaries. Inaccuracy is a bugaboo, not an acceptable statistical probability, in a book on making quantum mechanics accessible to a range of readers.
Makes me feel more and more that quantum is not weird after all. I want the author would recommend a maths book to go with it to hold up with the scientific proof at least for the level of the volunteer enthusiasts
Stewart and Tall have written some perfect mathematical texts, and this book is one of them. It with the basics of mathematics and treats them in a clear but thorough way. Although it is probably not essential, it is a amazing accompaniment to anybody starting a mathematics ey take the approach that one should already be familiar with an idea (via examples) before seeing its definition. This works well, although sometimes the result is that the pace is slow and the exposition is drawn out.
This book was written for those inquisitive/advanced high school students (6th formers in England) to give them an introduction to the number systems, formalization in mathematics and the concept of proof. Stewart is well-known for his clear writing and this book is an perfect example.
Book arrived earlier than I expected and is fresh with slight cosmetic damage, e.g., front or back cover slightly bent. For a small cosmetic damage, that I would likely have caused myself while using this book, I saved lots of $$$. Would again with no hesitation.
While it is thorough, I was bored to death and don't remember a thing about what I listened to. Instead I recommend Wisdom of History by Dr. Rufus Fears. Dr. Fears is a amazing story teller and is usually rated one of the best professors in the teaching company's line. The Wisdom of History, as opposed to this course, gave me a better encapsulation and interesting tales with it, and I can say I learned a lot.
Thomas F. X. Noble gives a Roman Catholic apologist vision of the History of Western Civilization. He does this subtlety through his choice of defining terms and by the omission of ideas and facts that place the Roman Catholic Church in a negative light. I therefore found his entire course suspect. This course was like the Fox News Ver of The History Western Civilization. If you are a product of a Roman Catholic education and are aware of its proclivities you will definitely recognize the "Spin Zone" of this professors course.
Okay so, ive read the introduction at the moment and skimmed the book. Reading the headline you're thinking why not? I thought it would at least teach some about the format but its about the mechanics of story plain and simple. The examples used, to me seems like its okay to write like that with camera angles etc, but that would be so very wrong, spec scripts arent written like the examples shown. They would obtain thrown in the garbage. In a lot of the pages it seems the author is just talking about himself to be honest. Granted, my first book is the screenwriting bible ( i finished reading) and that book grasps much better, much better. Also Hero Arcs is a amazing book too. This book can be amazing from a historical standpoint, but I will hold reading it, chances are I wont like it.
**DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR actual TECHNIQUE**This book several nods to developing an OUTLINE coupled with exerts from actual scripts (some current... mostly dated).Partial autobiography, partial name drops... This book did not chop it in any way, shape or ere's only 1 chapter that covers technical writing in extremely (EXTREMELY) broad strokes followed by a bland glossary of terminology that would grant any beginner's script exclusive rights to the bottom of the trash bin.If you're just starting out, I would highly recommend The Screenwriter's Bible. That book has a wealth of knowledge and insight into writing an awesome spec script with an extremely detailed breakdown of industry standard, script composition, and terminology along with step-by-step analysis.
A reasonable familiarity with the history of Western civilization is one of the mandatory foundations for cultural literacy, and this course is an outstanding resource to address that need (up to about 1600 CE). The course provides the background knowledge required to profitably read other literature and take other courses, so it serves as a valuable gateway to further ble is a clear and enthusiastic lecturer, so he manages to create this material both understandable and memorable, while also making the learning process enjoyable and entertaining. The course plenty of info (names, dates, places, etc.), but more importantly, there's an emphasis on conveying the patterns and trends which matter. Having 48 lectures for this course seems about ideal because it allows enough zone to cover the material beautiful well, without going overboard with info which wouldn't interest most people.Highly recommended for any adult aiming for broad learning and cultural literacy.
This book is one of the classics, so I recommend it to anyone interested in screenwriting - just don't miss Robert McKee's deeper "Story" and David Trottier's practical "Screenwriter's Bible". Syd Field is popular for his 'paradigm' and emphasis on structure as the skeleton that holds the script together. This might be something that every writer intrinsically knows, but it doesn't damage to see it analyzed and drawn as a picture. Stories have their own symmetry and being organized just makes writing more manageable. It's a bit like baking a cake: you can be more creative when you know the ground rules, and that's what we all want: delicious cakes and enjoyable movies.
The Foundations of Western Civilization is a unbelievable survey course in identifying and following the threads that characterize western civilization from neolithic times to the mid 16th century. The professor is learned, a amazing speaker, and engaging. Dr. Noble spends a fair amount of lecture time on Medieval Europe, fitting for being the Director of Medieval Studies at Notre Dame. As such, he really corrects a lot of historical "myths," such as the myth of the fall of the Roman Empire and the myth of the Dark a survey course, there are a lot of times when the listener is left asking, what about more x, or what about y? It is a survey course, though, and there's a lot of history to cover in 48 ~30min lectures. The amazing era of exploration is touched on but not delved into. Henry the Navigator, for example, is never mentioned. The invention of and impact of the printing press, contemporaneous with the Fall of Constantinople, is likewise never really discussed. Nevertheless, it is a jumping off point.I believe Dr. Noble would be happy if, after completing this course, the listener is compelled to reach out and delve deeper into individual subjects for greater understanding. All in all, a amazing course.
This book has a reputation as the best you can obtain if you wish to learn how to write a screenplay. Having read it, I don't doubt that's true. It's packed from cover to cover with succinct, useful info and tip on all aspects of the craft. It's not the -only- text on the subject, or the -only- one you should read, but it should be the -first- one you don't have to be interested in screenplays to search it worthwhile, either. Anyone involved in any kind of storytelling should search something of value here.
Being a screenwriter is about attaining a certain set of writing skills. Like any profession, there are standards that the industry requires. It's not enough to come up with a story. A amazing chuck of being a screenwriter is figuring out how to show that story in the proper format. My colleague, USC screenwriting instructor, Syd Field's book "Screenplay" is the quintessential tutorial to format. What script readers in Hollywood expect to happen by what page is info writers must know. Even if you decide to violate the rules, you must know them first before you do. So a lot of issues in scripts is the effect of not good structure. Field helps you shortcut that and figure out how to do it right.
I'm only pat method through it so may change my rating when it is completed. So far it has offered some fresh insights and perspectives regarding cultural interplays and the subsequent results on even current times. Those who do not remember their past, etc., etc.
It's a rare talent to have such a keen brilliant mind as Thomas F.X. Noble has, never mind that it's coupled with such an entertaining & pleasant to listen to narrative voice. Really a gem, even in the company of the others in the Amazing Courses series.
This book explains the foundations of screenwriting including the structure of a film, the structure of a script, and tactics for writing a screenplay. Tactics contain "all hero is revealed through action" (not inner dialog) and "all drama comes from conflict." As a newcomer to this form of writing, this book gave me a comprehensive understanding of screenwriting. It gave me a much greater appreciation for screenwriting as an art form and showed me how various it is from other forms of writing. Although I don't plan to write a screenplay any time soon, I picked up a bunch of amazing ideas for my daily of the best parts of the book is it illustrates the concepts through numerous examples of movies that employ these concepts. This not only helped with my understanding, but turned me on to some amazing movies I had not yet seen. Since reading this book, I've watched Chinatown and American Beauty. The knowledge I gained from Screenplay heightened my enjoyment of watching these movies because I now have a better appreciation for the craftsmanship that went into the creation.Highly recommended!
Syd Field has seen it all and will share his experience with you. I write the Carlos McCrary, Personal Investigator, Mystery/Thrillers. Mr. Field gives amazing tip about how the action should move,how the setting contributes to the plot, and how the characters should arc through the story.
This book is an perfect resource. It's hard to search a knock versus the book. One thing I feel would create this book better is, a section in the back of the book that provides an explanation for the 'Stop and Consider' questions. Even though the material presented provides the important info to respond the questions, it would be helpful to have an explanation from the authors to ensure the reader has come to the correct conclusion of the material when answering the 'Stop and Consider' questions. Otherwise, very nice book! I recommend it!
I don't think this book is nearly as amazing as it's cracked up to be. It's just method too verbose and doesn't actually deliver info and ideas in a method that's useful. I only got half method through because it was so tedious. The chapters lack focus, for one thing. Discussions about character, plot points, theme, context, etc. are presented in a really jumbled up way. And when you obtain down to the specifics, there isn't very much meat. He says, for example, that plot points move the story forward, without specifying (at least in the parts I read) what "moving the story forward" actually means. As for the examples, they are just method TMI. It isn't important to tell and retell the plots of films over and over again to obtain a point across. He could have referred to examples in a much more concise way, leaving it to readers to view the movies that interest them. K.M. Weiland's books are much better in this regard. She summarizes relevant parts of a film (or novel) in a true concise way, quickly getting to what matters. As a result, the how, what, and why of a amazing screenplay really pops. Reading Screenplay (even though I just read half) was a claustrophic experience for me because it's just so dense and verbose.
Field applies both his knowledge and experience to inform the reader. He provides a lot of examples from himself and other's works to futher delve into the subject, providing a greater understanding for screenwriting. He focuses not solely on successful screenwriting and useful techniques, but also advises how to proceed in the movie-making industry.
As a someone who is just a novice in screenwriting, I can't speak to the process with any amazing enlightenment. Still, I found Syd Field's book an outstanding tool in beginning my journey. Field lays out the work process from soup to nuts in a manner that is to understand and apply to your beginning work. Coming away from the book, I picked up a tremendous amount of info and easy techniques I am currently applying to my work. Whether or not I end up producing anything of import is absolutely up to me -- not to mention, a amazing sprinkle of luck -- but I feel a lot more comfortable having read Fields' book. In fact, I can say fairly convincingly that I probably would not have been able to obtain off the ground had I not followed Fields' tip in picking up a cork board and using notecards to plot out acts and scenes one at a time. Assuredly, this is not something that Fields patented, but it's pieces of guidance like this that create the book a valuable pick-up for aspiring screenwriters like fact, I would recommend that any others aspiring to write a amazing script, or writers in general who are interested in sharpened the tools in the toolbox read this in concert with Robert McKee's "Story." McKee's book is more advanced and more complex than Field's by a amazing stretch -- it took me a couple of weeks to fully digest McKee's book, vs a few days for Field's -- but the works are parallel tracks, and reading them back-to-back provided me with a wealth of perspectives and ideas that work quite well together. Forgive me if it sounds elitist, but I think McKee's book is more of a cerebral, thinking-man's tome; though it is itself an wonderful book that really helped me out. I would just read them both -- "Story," followed by "Screenplay" -- and you'll be on your way.
A lot of theories of justice are monistic: they suggest that justice boils down to rules x, y, and z, where x, y, and z do not ever conflict, clear answers to each moral dilemma when used properly, and do not depend on context. In "Elements of Justice" Schmidtz lays out what he calls a "contextual functionalist" view of the elements of justice - a pluralistic conception that suggests "justice' is created up of four elements that cannot be reduced to any formula. Desert, reciprocity, equality, and need are each part of justice, but depending on the situation, one (or two) of these four may be more necessary than others. For instance:What do we owe to children? What they need.What do we owe to spouses and friends? Reciprocation.What do we owe to citizens? Equality under the law.What do we owe to employees? What they e book is in six sections. The first goes over why Schmidtz sees this as essentially a pluralistic view of justice that is more akin to a map than a theory (a map is an imperfect guide; a theory is a detailed argument). Section two goes over the concept of desert and what is entailed. Schmidtz points out that desert cannot only be a reward but also in anticipation of what one will do. John can deserve his promotion by doing a amazing job, but Jane might deserve to be hired based on what we think she will do when she gets the job. The third section is devoted to the idea of reciprocity and how justice often (but not always) demands that we give in proportion to what we receive, paying back or paying forward. The fourth section goes over the idea of equality, noting in particular that attempts at equality of x will always effect in inequalities somewhere stly, we obtain into the idea of need. Here are where Schmidtz's views are probably the most controversial, as he joins with a lot of critics of the 'justice as concerned with equal distribution of shares' approach. To Schmidtz, equality should be less about equality of stuff, and more about equality of chances to secure well-being. So, a lot of theorists imagine that if we are in an orchard where there are two apples, justice demands that we each obtain one apple. But that assumes that we both got the orchard at the same time, and neither of us owned the tree with those apples on it. It seldom works that way. If you got to the orchard first and worked hard to plant and grow apple trees, and i obtain there later, is the egalitarian intuition that I deserve half still so obvious? No. Well, the true globe functions more like the latter than the former situation, and justice needs to function with the latter issues more than the former. To Schmidtz, the idea of property rights and allowing trade gives everyone more of a possibility that simply shifting around bundles of goods from those who have more to those who have less. (And for those doubting that property rights give amazing opportunity for the "have less's" to rise and the "have more's" to fall, Schmidtz gets into a very amazing statistic-heavy chapter showing that market-based societies have much more class fluidity than highly distributive ones.)The final section will also be a bit controversial, and as one whose never read Schmidtz before, I'm not sure I was expecting it. He discusses the Rawls/Nozick debate as the seminal debate in 20th century justice, and that part is far from controversial or new. But he, if I understand him correctly, considers himself somewhat on the side of Ralws, arguing that Rawls has largely been misunderstood as advocating for redistributive justice. No Schmidtz says. Rawls (a) puts primacy of put on negative liberty consistent with like negative liberty for others, and (b) suggests that inequality is to be permitted if the inequality benefits the worst off (by whom he means 'working poor'). Schmidtz (if I understand him right) is s saying that both of those conditions are happy best in a shop society. That negative liberty is given pride of put there is obvious, but think about the difference principle: one of the assets of capitalism is that in to obtain rich, one has to produce positive externalities for others by serving them what they wish to for. And, again, since Schmidtz sees equality of opportunity and possibility as more beneficial than equality of shares, it seems likely that a system of markets and property rights really satisfy the difference principle as well, and maybe better, than a distributive system that takes shares from the well off and gives them to those least well off. (Whether Rawls would have agreed with that is definitely debatable and a conclusion like this will surely @#$% off some Rawls fans.)Overall, Schmidtz's conception of justice is very contextualistic and, I would say, showing tips of rule-utilitarianism. When we are dealing with tough moral cases, one of the things Schmidtz seems to wish us to think about is, "What kind of action, if followed universally, would create everyone living together run most smoothly." For instance, imagine the situation where a train is coming at five people and you have the power to switch it to another track where it will only run one person over. Now, imagine that you work at a hospital where five people are to die for lack of organs, and you have the ability to save them by taking an innocent bystander, using her organs to save the five. Same problem, but various intuitions. Schmidtz explains it this way: we wish to save the five on the tracks, but can't bring ourselves to save the five in the hospital, because, in the latter case, it involves treating a human being as if they did not have autonomy and rights (where in the former case, the person is already on the train track). We could save the five in the hospital by violating the bystander's autonomy, but that would mean living in a globe where everyone is aware that they could be the next bystander. Schmidtz defends property rights in the same way: if we live in a globe where we know that what is ours is our and what is hers is hers, it is a lot safer for all of us than living in a globe where social utility is constantly maximized and no one can be sure whether they will come out on the losing end. Etc.Anyhow, this is an interesting book with an interesting pluralistic view of justice. Anyone looking for a hard-argued theory of justice will not obtain it here. Like Walzer's Spheres Of Justice: A Defense Of Pluralism And Equality or Kekes's The Morality of Pluralism, this conception is pluralistic and thus, always somewhat incomplete (as a theory, that is, because it is contextual). It is also, indirectly, an interesting defense of markets as a more just system than highly egalitarian systems.
Written from the point of view of a Jewish defense attorney, this exegesis of Genesis is fascinating in its analysis of God's capriciousness toward his Creation. Some of the most perplexingly arbitrary actions ascribed to God in the first book of the Bible have been the topic of endless speculation and sometimes laughable attempts to justify them. Dershowitz uses the apparent injustices committed by God in Genesis as the apotheosis of human evil which exemplified the need for the laws of the next several books of the Torah. His retelling of the familiar stories of Genesis through Everett Fox's translation of Genesis gives a fresh perspective on the origins of the Bible's notice to this progressive Christian reader. Outstanding!
God's sense of justice evolved over time...pretty hilarious theme to a guy who grew up reading the Bible literally and scratching his head over some of the perceived unfairness of God's actions. I didn't have fun Dershowitz looping in the Rabbinic tradition into his analysis, which is the only reason I didn't give this book five stars. Is God fallible? Does he create mistakes? If the Bible is your source of divine inspiration, and you wish answers to those questions, Dershowitz's book is a amazing read. Or if you are a Christian and don't mind having traditional views of Genesis and God challenged, this is a amazing book. If you wish to be entertained or have fun scholarly debate and analysis, this also is a amazing read. I suspect that fundamentalists will be place off by Dershowitz's commentary.
I have not much to say but that this book is amazing for someone who is interested in the law of God and the lawsas they apply to us today. It is very amazing for a law student who is interested in the justice in the legal systemand how the app of the law has changed.
Schmidtz covers a lot of ground in this interesting analysis of justice. Schmidtz is innovative in thinking of a theory of justice as a map. He contains poignant discussion on desert but at times he seems to not critically examine the will implications behind some of his theorizing. All around a very amazing book.
In "The Genesis of Justice" the brilliant teacher/lawyer Alan Dershowitz examines the first book of the bible as the foundation of Western legal tradition. His awesome insights into what these ancient biblical stories have to say about injustice are something that everyone who is concerned about justice should read. This book is full of questions I have never thought to ask. Dershowitz's Jewish background leads him to approach the text from a direction that most Americans would never even conceive of. The globe of rabbincal theology was opened to me for the first time and I found I wish to know more.Having said all that, this is not a theology textbook. It is a book about the law, so don't come to this book looking for amazing theology; either Jewish or Christian. Dershowitz's conclusions about God's justice, ominiscience, and perfection stretch the bounds of orthodoxy of both faiths. He reads Genesis and takes his theology straight from it without using the entire Old Testament to inform his views on the above characteristics of the Lord. I found this a bit frustrating, but don't allow that stop you from reading this well done and thought provoking book by a brilliant mind.
Just a short commentary here, because this is a bit difficult of a work to categorize. The point I do wish to create is not only that it is a very thoughtful and educational text, but it is one that is more than mildly enjoyable to read. Stop and think for a moment; how a lot of times can you genuinely say that about a book of law, theology or philosophy. Dershowitz's preeminence as a professor carry over very well into the field of writing and one can read a chapter or two at a time purely for the enjoyment of self-improvement and reflection. The author makes a number of contemporary allusions, but does not do so in a method that kindles partisanship. Instead, he does a unbelievable job of causing the reader to think about the problem and come to a conclusion that he or she did not anticipate before and to do so with a sense of moral comfort. I'd recommend this for all ages, but particularly for old farts like myself who take pleasure in fresh and thinking.
This week the state in which I live, Nevada, executed someone. Was he guilty? Probably, he was found guilty in a and then confessed. After some twelve yers on death row he quit appealing and asked to be executed. The comment of the kids of the lady he killed were reported by the news as being thankful that justice had been served and closure brought to the situation. Today in the paper there are several articles wanting other people on death row to be this justice? Is it justice if the people executed are largely poor, minority and male? Or do the poor, minority males commit more crimes?These and a lot of other points about justice do not have simple answers. This small book attempts to show a theory of justice that covers these and a lot of other points. In defining justice he discusses deserving, reciprocity, equality, and the philosophy of what has defined justice down through the years.Excellently written, this is a book that makes you think.
Square One is an phenomenal small book. Patterson starts at the absolute foundation. This is the book I was looking for when I first delved into philosophy years ago..but it didn't exist then!This is a book on logic, the important precondition for all rational discourse. Logic is true and you can wrap your head around it!If you are frustrated by fuzzy and often contradictory claims for truth in philosophy (and the globe at large), take heart. As SO demonstrates, there are universal, objective truths that form the basis for all productive inquiry. These are knowable truths, and this book cuts through the clutter to obtain down to them. They are few, but they are the root of all other uths like the law of identity may seem trivial and self-evident at first glance, but when you start to unpack a lot of of the common claims in every discipline, you'll explore they are often ignored or wished spite the importance of the topic matter, this book is slim, efficient, and concise. It reads with private favorite passage is an analogy I'm going to come back to from now on. The relationship between theory and data is described beautifully in terms of the android game of poker. This passage, like the rest of the book, demonstrates Patterson's ability to take seemingly overwhelming topic matter and distill it into something that makes sense and is fun to read.Pick up a copy. Lay the foundations for clear thought.
This book will support you develop a methodology on how to figure out everything, and suggest a clear starting point on that journey.On the way, you'll learn some absolute truths as well, which is a unbelievable accomplishment for any ank you for the book Steve, and I look forward to your future writings.
A superb acc of the development of the physical model of the Universe culminating in the Newtonian framework. What sets this book apart from others is how Burtt attacks the interplay between the philosophical, social, and religious worldviews characteristics of the time period.Burtt overthrows some of the conceptions still held today that the religious paradigm was the overrdiding impediment to the acceptance of the Copernican framework among the scientific community. Burtt demonstrates how the scientific community of the time had no need to revise the epicycles and deferrents of the ptolemaic scheme. It was only through the argument of greater simplicity and the appeal to the neo-platonic mathematical ideals that it became more widely accepted.A must read for any student of science interested in the complex interplay of ideas that eventually led to the rationale for and acceptance of Newtonian mechanics and the resulting metaphysical framework.
A lot of books that were well received when originally published ultimately fail the try of time and seem hopelessly outdated, or even silly to future generations. Occasionally, a book seen as a solid effort when it was written is found later to be the definitive work on the subject. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt is such a book.Burtt investigates the origins of the modern scientific globe view, a view that today appears to be ancient but is, in fact, only a few centuries old. The concepts that we use to describe the modern globe -- mass, velocity, energy, time etc -- form the substratum of so a lot of modern ideas that their very ubiquity has created it hard to imagine that any other view ever existed. With these ideas woven into all of our thought how does one separate these ideas from all others in to better appreciate and understand them? Burtt attacks this issue by tracing the evolution of modern scientific concepts from their origins in Copernicus and Kepler through to their highest development in Isaac may come as a surprise that Copernicus and Kepler were not motivated by empirical evidence. In fact, the empirical evidence was stacked versus their view that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the planetary system. Anyone could see how solid the earth felt and how steady it was. If it were moving then its motion could be felt. The idea that something as huge and solid as the earth could be flung through zone was obviously r were they motivated by a desire for greater accuracy since the Ptolemaic system that they would soon replace was every bit as accurate as their sun centered system with regards to predicting eclipses and positions of the planets in the eir motivation was essentially a desire for a mathematically elegant method to express planetary motion, a simpler method that could reduce the tons of epicycles to a comparatively little number of circles. For these men, mathematics was not the key to nature, mathematics was nature and the simpler mathematical expressions that they found were real because nature was parsimonious and would not accomplish by complicated means (the epicycles) what could be accomplished more simply with circular orbits. A mathematical nature would reduce the phenomena much as a mathematician would reduce complex equations to a smaller number of easy pler's shock upon discovering that the planets did not orbit in circles, but in ellipses was genuine. The smooth constant motion of the planets was thought by Kepler to reflect the constancy of God himself. Only when Kepler discovered that equal locations were swept out by the planets in equal times was his faith restored in the mathematical universe that was held together by Galileo we see the beginnings of dualism. On one hand Galileo the empiricist laughs at his colleagues who refuse to look through his telescope and see the evidence of moons orbiting Jupiter. On the other hand we see the doctrine of basic and secondary qualities in which we do not perceive the globe as it is, but rather as it affects our senses. This doctrine calls into question the validity of the senses which, presumably, are the source for Galileo's (and our) knowledge of the true world. With sense data either limited or distorted and hence, of questionable reliability, mathematical demonstration becomes the method past the senses to the ultimate nature of things. Descartes further mechanizes the senses and pushes consciousness farther away from reality thereby producing a full blown dualism in which man becomes a spirit trapped in a machine.When we finally arrive at Newton, by method of Gilbert and Boyle, we have a fresh universe where the number of causes is reduced from the Aristotelian four, to only two. The formal cause has become mathematics which matter must obey in exacting detail. The efficient and substantial causes merge into a mechanical force compelling a passive matter to follow precise trajectories. Gone completely is the final cause as matter becomes the sole occupant of a universe whose future is completely determined by its past. The biological concept of goal directed action has no put in the billiard ball universe of unconscious motion. The irony is that one of man's greatest intellectual achievements, the formulation of the laws of motion, becomes a means to degrade man's intellectual status by reducing man's mind to matter in e above is a gross oversimplification of Burtt's work and cannot start to convey the richness of his research and the clarity of his presentation. Burtt uses extensive quotes to present the reasoning used by the amazing mathematicians and physicists at the dawn of the Enlightenment and clearly demonstrates the shift in thinking that occurs over two e only drawback to Burtt's work is that it was written nearly seventy years ago and the effects of these ideas on post-Newtonian thought are not covered. The author, in the revised 1932 edition, expressed regret that he could not incorporate these later developments into his revision of the original 1924 work. I too, feel regret that Burtt did not obtain around to another revision where he might shed some light on the effects of these ideas on quantum mechanics and relativity.Anyone interested in the development of the modern philosophy of science will have fun this intellectual journey through the minds of some of mankind's finest thinkers, those men who created possible the remarkable globe that we live in today.
I'm struggling with this book a bit. I do have some research background allowing me to relate concepts to the true world. But I'm already starting to feel there's nowhere near enough examples to create this stick. Accepting that the research principles can apply across a spectrum of disciplines, it would still be useful to have more real-world examples. I frequently read something a lot of times before making the connection with something I know quite well. If more practical examples had been given, I would have created the connection a lot quicker, and I believe someone fresh to research would obtain the gist of the language and methods a lot quicker.I like the structure of this book though, and feel confident that I will use it time and time again.
E. A. Burtt provides a historical acc of what a lot of people might regard as surprising in the globe of science. Burtt fundamentally reveals that the inspiration or basis for a lot of theories and fresh ideas during the scientific revolution was not based on empirical data and experimentation; rather, they were driven by the metaphysical and aesthetically charged geometrical atomism of pre-Socratic Greek philosopher cording to this worldview, the underlying essence of the universe is mathematical, and in the case of Pythagoras, the mind-independent globe was literally comprised by physical, geometrical atoms or structures. This was not a worldview that was supported by facts and empirical testing at the time, but was introduced on a priori (before experience) grounds and reasoning.Burtt begins with Copernicus and his heliocentric view of the solar system, which stated that the Sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth. Contrary to our intuitions or education on how hypotheses originate, Copernicus was not swayed by any empirical data to suggest this fresh worldview (which was conceptually not new, but posited by Greek philosopher Aristarchus of Samos in 4th century B.C.), rather he was infatuated with the re-birth of the Pythagorean metaphysic via the time of Copernicus (1473 – 1543), there were no empirical problems with Ptolemy's Christian inspired and anthropocentric geocentric theory, and in fact Copernicus' heliocentric theory was up versus several problems, such as the inability at the time to observe and validateparallax (the shifting of the observable position of the stars based on the assumption that the earth shifts its position as it revolves around the Sun). And of course, Copernicus was up versus the religious powers at the time, which used Biblical text to help the geocentric view of the addition, both Copernicus and Ptolemy’s systems were able to predict the same celestial phenomena, so from a practical standpoint, Copernicus offered no advantage with his theory. The basic difference was that Copernicus' heliocentric theory exhibited or implied more harmony, simplicity, and beauty with its app of less epicycles (small circular deviations that planets had to take as they rotated around the Sun or Earth, to acc for their true elliptical pathways, which were unknown until Kepler). Accepting the heliocentric theory based on the preconceived notions of harmony, simplicity, and beauty was not based on empirical testing, but was derived from the Pythagorean metaphysic, and indeed much of the Greek worldview that the universe was fundamentally orderly, harmonious, and attractive at its core. This aesthetic and metaphysic was accepted by reason alone, a priori, not on something remotely close to the scientific method. Place another way, this metaphysic described the method thinkers wanted the essence of the universe to be, not the method it was validated to be via short, Copernicus essentially embraced the Pythagorean mathematical interpretation of the universe and became convinced that the whole universe is created up of numbers. And since mathematicians at the time were attracted to the notion of simplicity, beauty, and harmony, this provided an a priori basis for accepting his heliocentric theory.Burtt moves on to create a related case in light of the theories and work of Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Gilbert, Newton, and others. All these amazing thinkers were inspired and influenced by the same Pythagorean metaphysic of numbers and the a priori, untestable assumption that the underlying (not observable) essence of the universe as pler worshiped the Sun metaphorically as "God"; introduced a mysterious, aesthetic, and untestable view of causation; and asserted that the true globe existed independent of the mind and was entirely mathematical in llowing the lead of Copernicus and his attention to celestial phenomena, Galileo applied the Pythagorean metaphysic to the globe of terrestrial dynamics; stated that nature acts according to immutable mathematical laws (the language of the universe); asserted that matter is comprised of infinitely little indivisible atoms, which only possess mathematical properties (number, figure, magnitude, position, motion, etc); and introduced the notion of "occult" indestructible forces that governed the movement of matter behind the scenes (since matter by itself floating around in absolute zone cannot govern its own orderly behavior without the aid of an exterior agent).Descartes viewed the universe as a geometrical machine; denied the existence of a void or vacuum in zone (as did a lot of during that time to with the issue of "Action at a Distance); and constructed a radical mind-body dualism that would plague Western globe thinkers for the rest of history, as well as introduce a number of philosophical absurdities and challenges (such as Descartes’ ludicrous idea that the pineal gland in the brain was the connection point or “dysfunctional conjunction” between the material body/brain and the soul).Henry More envisioned forces as the "Spirit of Nature", where gravity, cohesion, magnetism, etc are not mechanical (like the geometrical motion of bodies), but “spiritual” or indicative of a divine lbert, the father of the study of magnetism, posited that magnetism was the "soul" of the universe, and that this soul, though spiritual, is extended in zone (not immaterial) and explains action at a distance. Newton truly turned over a fresh leaf and suggested that we can neverknow the essences or causes of these "occult" forces in nature, but can only mathematically reduce and formulate their observable effects (such as his inverse square law of gravity). Yet in the end he ironically embraces, as did a lot of of his predecessors, the “God of the Gaps” and affirms that the material globe is fundamentally mathematical (return of the Pythagorean metaphysic) and is composed of hard, indestructible particles that were made by God and have only mathematical attributes; that the human soul is locked up inside the body with absolutely no contact with the real, external physical globe (dualism of Descartes); and that based on the metaphysic of primary-secondary qualities, secondary qualities (color, taste, etc) are all phantasms made by the mind, not properties of the physical, external ton and those before him ultimately sold out to metaphysics, as their “fudge factor” and method of coping with the unknown. Or, as an alternative and perhaps more likely explanation, shall we speculate that maintaining a little and virtually harmless component of theological mysticism was their method of staying out of problem with the Church, lest they be burnt as the stake as Bruno was in 1600 for his heretical ideas?We can summarize the extent of metaphysical foundations of modern science as follows:• The Pythagorean-Neo-Platonist view that the underlying nature of the universe is mathematical, assumed a priori and based on the aesthetic principles of harmony, simplicity, and beauty (Copernicus et al)• Deification of the Sun and assumption that harmonious mathematical structures cause observable phenomenon (Kepler)• Atomism: physical universe is comprised of indestructible particles that have only mathematical properties (Galileo et al)• A priori assumption that all empirical phenomenon can be reduced to mathematical relationships (all)• Universe viewed as “geometrical machine” (Descartes)• Concept of primary/secondary qualities: only mathematical qualities of physical objects are real; secondary qualities (smell, taste, color, etc) are figments of the mind (all)• Radical mind-body dualism: minds/souls completely detached and separate from the real, physical globe (Descartes et al)• A priori knowledge of the universe is mathematical and of divine origin• Introduction of ether and occult or spiritual/divine forces to avoid the issue of “action at a distance” (spirit of nature, magnetic soul, God as incorporeal or extended plenum,etc)
Highly recommended for just about anyone interested in philosophy and epistemology, especially as an introduction.A succinct and compelling introduction to objective truths and philosophical ideas that we take for granted and that a lot of modern "intellectuals" mistakenly dismiss. In my opinion, the book serves as a amazing tutorial to "how to think," arguing that speculation and challenging one's own fundamental beliefs are not only healthy but important for anyone genuinely concerned with Truth. Despite their simplicity, some of the concepts presenting in the book are not simple to grasp, especially if you've never toyed with them before. But Patterson introduces and explores them in a method that most can comprehend, be it through analogy, abstract placeholders, or real-world example. If anything, the book can feel a bit repetitive as Patterson often restates and rewords the same premise, but the various formulations were extremely helpful; if I couldn't quite grasp one formulation, another would support clear it up.
A plain language orientation to clear-headed thinking. I liked it so much, I ordered 5 copies for a study group in my community, to read the entire book together, so that we can establish some common understanding for development of our community philosophy.
I give the book four stars which means it met my expectations. If you're looking for a book that gives the very primary first step to learning about or studying philosophy then I think you'll like the the title suggests, this is the very first step of thinking about philosophy. A lot of the book is spent defining logic. However, the author does take time to answer, using the logic and foundation of knowledge he explains first, to respond some primary paradoxes. For example, 'what is the sound of one hand clapping.'I heard this author on a podcast and I really liked what he had to say. I thought this book might support me evaluate some of my political beliefs (one method or the other) but that is not what this particular book is for. It's much more basic.
This book is a amazing put to search some helpful info about suggestions and the method we (human beings) can be “programmed” or hypnotized easily. After reading this book, it has been difficult to ignore most of these suggestions that surround us every day.
Once again the Rogue Hypnotist delivers much more than he sells - and boy, he sells himself well favorite part of the book was a unbelievable list of phrases useful for crafting suggestions... very much like the now popular Zebu Cards or Igor Lechodowski's own package of ere's even a surprise waiting for us at the end of the book. Let yourself to go with the flow. You'll thank me later.
Page 238 of this book will always be memorable to me. Like a "stretto" in a final fugue, all relevant themes for a proper understanding of what it really means to be "modern", carefully laid out across the book by following the vision of Galileo, Descartes, and Boyle (and to a lesser degree, Hobbes, More and Barrow) collapse, as it needs to be, in the towering figure of Sir Isaac Newton. For to me it was just like this: an instant flash, in which I could "see" just at once, what it means, and the wonder of being, modern. In sum, a revelation!So, if you really want, without prejudices, to really understand, or even "face" this problem, this is THE book to read.
The author is logical and a deep thinker who challenges conventional wisdom.I learned a lot!But if you are prejudiced or jaundiced, you won't like this author, especially those who are tenured!I want the author accepts cards so that people with no Paypal accounts can donate to the author so that he can continue his work.
Ever since I took my first philosophy course in college, I hated philosophy. It totally turned me off of the subject. I spent the next few years believing that philosophy was for people who didn't wish to accomplish anything and just wanted to sit around and think all day. In the class, we were supposed to memorize historical philosophical arguments. It didn't encourage me to think for myself. Instead, it encouraged me familiarize myself with someone else's thinking, teaching me nothing but "facts" that I would never be able to use in the context of the true world.Square One is different. This book was recommended to me by a colleague, and it sparked a deep dive into philosophy--REAL philosophy. I love how it outlines a *way of thinking for yourself* and not just a specific argument that was of historical significance. I highly recommend reading it if you're getting into philosophy and wish to shape your first-principles.