New Blog.

I have been keeping a new blog for a while now at brandonslyceum.blogspot.com . I read far too many books to review them all here, and I created the newer blog to share my own thoughts instead, although I may occasionally discuss a book there.

Nietzsche and the Nazis (Book) by Stephen R.C. Hicks

Nietzsche and the Nazis by Stephen Hicks

This is the book version of a documentary of the same name that I reviewed here. Briefly, the contents of this book look at two major things: the first thing being the philosophy behind the Nazi party, what their ideals were, and what intellectual circumstances allowed for their rise to power. Secondly, the book looks at the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The book looks to see how the two are related, and to what extent. Nietzsche is often accused of being a Nazi, when that is not the case. However, there are things in his thought that inspired the Nazis and are themselves dangerous ideas. Today, he is often looked at as an existentialist and early postmodernist, and the dangerous part of his philosophy ignored. This book provides a truly fair and balanced look at Nietzsche and his relation to the Nazi party, neither incriminating him as a Nazi or pigeonholing him with the existentialists. The book itself is very nice looking, with glossy pages and color photos in the book, with a nice hardback cover and cloth spine with the title embossed on it. To anyone who enjoys the documentary, I recommend ordering a copy of this book as well. If you don't want to watch the documentary-lecture, I still recommend buying this because it offers a fresh look at the Nazi party and Nietzsche that is sure to interest the history hobbyist or the philosopher.

Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy by Bob Doyle

Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy by Bob Doyle

In the modern academic world, to quote Rush, "there are those who think that life has nothing left to chance take, a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance."¹ That is, a view called hard determinism that denies that humans have free will, and are variously just the mere products of atoms bumping into each other in the void, the puppets of genes, that time itself is an illusion, or that all is pre-ordained, among other sorts of determinism have increasingly become commonplace in philosophy and various sciences. In this book, the philosopher, physicist, and inventor Bob Doyle takes a look at the history of the free will debates, and gives an in depth analysis of all the different views on the subject. This book is not only a great resource for those interested in the subject, but includes some very convincing defenses of free will and a great solution to the determinism/indeterminism metaphysical dichotomy. He bases the views on well established science, and turns physics against the determinists who use it to deny free will. Not much seems to be left out of the book, which is full of references, annotations, and very well cited. It is a very academic work, but it is written in very easy to read language and includes a glossary of terms at the back for the reader who is not familiar with the subject.

Bob Doyle is probably not a familiar name to most, but he should be. He is an astrophysicist and quantum physicist, philosopher, and programmed the first word processor and some early video games including a best seller in 1980. He has also worked for NASA on a few different projects. More information can be found about him and his philosophical views at The Information Philosopher as well as his Wikipedia page. All in all, his intellect is not one to be dismissed, and this book should be read by anyone interested in philosophy.

¹Free Will by Rush, on the album Permanent Waves

Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen R.C. Hicks

Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks

This book provides a tour de force look at the history of the intellectual lineage of postmodernism, showing its skeptical and socialist roots in philosophy. He traces postmodernism's roots to Kant, via Hegel, and then Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche onward to the twentieth century. He denounces Kant as anti-Enlightenment, which might strike some as strange since Kant is regarded as one of the most prolific thinkers of his time and indeed even wrote an essay called "On Enlightenment." Kant definitely considered himself a product of the Enlightenment, but at the same time Kant, in his on words, "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." This set the stage for the intellectual lineage of thinkers that gave birth to postmodernism. I am not sure that I would call him the "great destroyer" or, as Nietzsche did, the "great spider" on the sole basis of his thought, being that I can appreciate that Kant was trying to make a compromise between rationalist and empiricist philosophy and earnestly trying to solve some of the major problems of philosophy. Though, like Dr. Hicks, I disagree with his philosophy and have a strong distaste for what it lead to. I think in the last analysis, Kant contributed little of value to the history of philosophy other than to lead to schools of thought that were dead ends.

His analysis of the Analytic and Positivist traditions in philosophy seem spot on to me. In the end, Positivism was left grasping for straws because it only allowed itself logic and language to work with.¹ Just as well, his analysis of Continental Philosophy is just as accurate, that it is a lot of airy speculation not only divorced from reason but often opposed to it. To Stephen Hicks, philosophy is not some abstract intellectual enterprise divorced from reality, and that is preciesly the kind of thinking he condemns. To Dr. Hicks, philosophy is something to be taken seriously becase it produces ideas, and as he shows, ideas have real world consequences and are not something to be taken lightly. Dr. Hicks also analyzes the history of Socialism, in both its left wing (Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, New Left, etc) forms and Right wing forms (National Socialism), and shows how the anti-science and rationality of postmodernism came to serve the interests of the socialists very well. The traditions of skepticism and socialism share similar origins and eventually converge. Dr. Hicks shows how Socialism has failed time after time in its various forms, and why it has resorted to denying reason and reality to pursue an ideaological goal. Even if you are sympathetic to left wing economics, it would be in your best interest to read this and see where they have gone wrong in the past, and what has had to be done to maintain those positions. In my opinion, free markets have already been shown to be superior, but human irrationality and immoral behavior requires some checks and balances on the economy, and some government run things like infrastructure maintenance and public schools are necessary. However, the less interference the better.

Some may detect a hint of Ayn Rand in his attacking Kant as anti-Enlightenment and in the overall tone of the book. You would not be wrong. Stephen Hicks has Objectivist associations. However, do not let that put you off from reading this book. I am not an Objectivist, but I am sympathetic to its emphasis on free markets (though not to the nearly anarcho-capitalist sense that I read in Ayn Rand), liberal democracy, and reason. In addition, the strand of Objectivism most people are familiar with is the Objectivism of the Ayn Rand Institute, long headed by Leonard Peikoff. The Ayn Rand Institute is what I would call the Roman Catholic Church of the world of Objectivism. Dr. Hicks has worked closely with David Kelly before, and authored a textbook on critical thinking with him. David Kelly split from the Ayn Rand Institute over a disagreement with Peikoff that Objectivism should be open to criticism and further development, rather than a closed system that only relies on Ayn Rand's texts (and of course, anything Peikoff himself writes). Ayn Rand has been disserviced by the academia. Kant, Marx, and Rousseau are taught as innovative, yet their works lead to death and misery on a wide scale when it gets down to it. This seems unfair to her and her ideas. This book does not come across as an Objectivist diatribe, and the contents of this book are very much worth reading. Do not let Dr. Hicks's associations with Objectivism put you off from reading this. This is a book that more people should read, because it allows an understanding of the postmodernist commitment of much of modern academics in the humanities and politics. It is a book that I am glad to have read, and will definitely return to again. Also check out my review of his documentary Nietzsche and the Nazis.

¹See my criticism of The Grand Design for my comments on Logical Positivism.

Nietzsche and the Nazis (Video) by Stephen R.C. Hicks

Nietzsche and the Nazis

Nietzsche and the Nazis is a documentary-lecture by the philosopher Stephen R.C. Hicks. It is one of the most educational documentaries I have watched in a long time. The film is divided into 38 chapters that starts out introducing the role philosophy has to play in the course of history. Dr. Hicks then gives an overview of the explanations for the rise of the Nazi party, and explains why the common explanations given are unsatisfactory. He proposes his own answer, that it was a well thought out philosophical movement. Chapters 5-11 give an overview of the philosophy behind the Nazi party, and chapters 12-19 explain what happened once the Nazis took over. While that may sound like something everyone knows, there were a few details in there that I have never heard before, such as the details of how the Nazis manipulated the market and how Aryan Germans were urged to reproduce through propaganda. Chapters 20-25 introduce who Friedrich Nietzsche is and what his philosophy was like. It is by no means a comprehensive account of Nietzsche's philosophical views, as his views changed gradually over the course of his books, nor does it go into depth about the sources of Nietzsche's thought. However, it does give enough of a general overview to understand the nature of his thinking, and it is explained very well. Chapters 26-31 show how his philosophy was very different from that of the Nazi party. 32-37 explores the similarities between Nietzsche and the Nazis, and shows what parts of his ideology were used to justify Nazi policy. He concludes the documentary by comparing the basic principals of the Nazi party and similar social movements to those of modern liberal democracy. The format of the film largely consists of Dr. Hicks lecturing from various places in his office, which sounds boring but he is interesting to listen to, and not at all monotone or boring. There are various pictures used in the presentation, so it is not just a video of him talking. The "do it yourself" aesthetic of this documentary works in his favor, and does not seem cheap.

When I first started reading philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche was the first one that I read. I had encountered him by happenstance while going through a teacher's class bookshelf in high school, and saw a book that had a compilation of several of his writings. A couple of years later, when I started reading philosophy I purchased Thus Spoke Zarathustra and several other books by him. I was reading Nietzsche through the lens of existentialism, and viewed him as a potent and inspirational writer who preached a mentality of carpe diem. Over time, as I read more by him and became more aware of the more brutal side of his philosophy, I distanced myself from him. As I have studied more philosophy, I have come to realize that he never really argued for things, and that his writings are only philosophy in a very loose sense. That is, his philosophy did not consist of logical argument. That being said, I have noticed that opinions about Nietzsche are usually either divided into those who view him as a Nazi (as a professor of mine once claimed, if Nietzsche had lived longer he would have been a card carrying member of the Nazi party), or those who view him as a forerunner of existentialism. Ever since Walter Kaufmann translated his works, the existentialist interpretation has become ever more common. Nevertheless, both sides fail to see the the relevance of his writings. In this documentary, Stephen Hicks looks at the aspects of his thought that were very different from the Nazis, as well as the points of similarity. Dr. Hicks does Nietzsche justice in the sense that he views Nietzsche's work and its role in history honestly without favor or disfavor.

Anyone interested in either philosophy or history ought to watch this film. There is also a book adaptation of this film of the same name, which at the time of this review I do not own. However, Dr. Hicks is also the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Focault, which will be reviewed at a later date. This film is usually pretty cheap on Amazon.com, and those who have the ability to stream from Netflix, it is available to stream as of 2/24/2012.

An Update

I have not had much time to write a new book review lately, because my schooling must take priority over private reading and internet fun. However, I have read things and have some things on my list to read.

In the recent months, I have noticed that some of my beliefs are fundamentally different from the New Atheist movement, and have been researching many issues such as free will, metaphysics, and so forth. So, some of the upcoming book reviews will reflect that.

Some titles you can expect to see in future reviews are:

The Reason Driven Life by Robert M. Price

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

Free Will: The Scandal In Philosophy by Bob Doyle

Who's In Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael Gazzaniga

The video documentary Nietzsche and the Nazis by Stephen Hicks

The Problems of Philosophy by Betrand Russell

and perhaps other things. I am not commited to writing reviews in that order, but those are some books on my current reading list.

The blog is not dead, so stay tuned for further updates!

The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark

The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries To Hide It) is, in short, a great book. It sits proudly on my bookshelf with other biblical scholars such as Robert M. Price, and the esteemed Bart D. Ehrman. Thom Stark is a Christian who gets it. Mind you, he's not an orthodox Christian. I would describe him as having a humanistic worldview with a strong appreciation for the teachings of Jesus Christ. I might even go so far as to say it is akin to the views expressed by Thomas Jefferson in Ye Will Say I am No Christian (which has been reviewed on this blog). In this book, Thom Stark lays out piece by piece why those called "inerrantists" are dead wrong; that is, someone who takes the Bible to be the literally true, flawless, divine word of God. He shows why inerrantists don't actually exist, but that those who think that they are are not only dead wrong, but hazardous. He then looks at the origins of Judaism, showing that it originally was a polytheistic religion. He then shows the barbaric practices of the ancient Jews, including human sacrifice and genocide. He also shows how certain stories were fabricated to boost morale, as propaganda for the Jewish people. He shows how Jesus was wrong about the coming kingdom of God, and how his views make sense for an apocalyptic prophet who's views fit a similar paradigm to other apocalyptic Jewish sects such as the Dead Sea Scroll community. In some spots the book seems to drag on, but only because the author is trying to clearly and fully explain what his point is. He also includes the evidence relevant to what he is discussing. Throughout the book you will encounter transliterations and explanations of ancient Hebrew words as they originally appear, translations of textual variants the verses of scripture he is referencing, and in one case the actual Hebrew letters to show you how an editor merely exchanged one word for another. If you are truly interested in what he has to say and are not an expert in the field, the inclusion of the evidence in question is convenient and actually time saving.

Like a good professor, at the end of each section he writes a conclusion to tie together all of his points. His writing is clear, and easy to understand. He explains terms that I wouldn't know off the top of my head, because I am not a Biblical scholar. His sources are also very well documented, which combined with the inclusion of evidence he is talking about, and the clarity of his writing, makes for an academically sound yet readable work. At the end of the book he gives hope for the faithful. Rather than using these things to destroy Christianity entirely, he provides an alternative, liberal, humanistic Christianity that rejects fundamentalism, inerrancy, and bigotry. He advocates living by the morals that Jesus actually spoke of, such as toleration and peace. As I said before, Thom Stark is a Christian who "gets it". He understands that traditional faith is groundless and hazardous, but he also understands that you can't just destroy something important to society without giving a positive alternative in its place. This is what worried the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche when he said, "God is dead." Nietzsche feared that a debilitating nihilism would sweep over Europe as Christianity slowly eroded from society, and advocated the "master morality" of the "übermensch" where artistic aristocrats would rule. I think that Thom Stark understands this as well, but instead offers a more feasible alternative to the masses instead of knocking down orthodox Christianity and leaving nihilism in its place. I derive my moral guidance from Aristotle and Epicurus, but to those who admire the teachings of Jesus or don't wish to abandon the Christian community and set of traditions, Stark is the one you should read. Fans of Bart Ehrman will definitely enjoy this as well.

10/10

Buy Online at Amazon.com Today!