- Hardcover: 380 pages
- Publisher: Four Walls Eight Windows (18 Dec 2003)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 1568582935
- ISBN-13: 978-1568582931
- Product Dimensions: 23.6 x 16.1 x 3.1 cm
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,124,837 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
| ||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Synopsis
Is it moral to sacrifice one's life for a higher goal? Why do many in the U. S. think it admirable to join the army but despicable for Palestinians to sign up with Hamas? How can we actually determine "evil" and "good" in the daily world? These practical questions cut to the heart of what it means to be human. John Ralston Saul, in his matter-of-fact discussion of six basic human qualities ethics, common sense, intuition, imagination, memory, and reason confronts basic concepts in a manner not done since Thomas Paine more than two centuries ago. In an easy-to-understand style, Saul explains why essential qualities of being human cannot exist in isolation but instead depend on and enrich each other. On Equilibrium persuasively explores morality and how it can be used to foster equilibrium for the self and achieve an ethical society.
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
7 reviews
18 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Much food for thought, but may also give some indigestion
5 April 2004
Format:Hardcover
"On Equlllibrium" follows in the tradition of Saul's earlier trilogy of philosophical works, extolling the classical humanist virtues and attacking various forms of modern corporatist rationale and systematic manipulations of human reason.
This book is like a very rich pastry, full of insights that bear savoring and re-savoring. On the other hand, as Saul is very much aware, it does not lead to a very satisfying conclusion. In the end, it is the reflective balance between the various intentionally vaguely defined qualities that make us human tha Saul equates with essential human wisdom. This sides the author with Rawls and a number of other progressive theorists who favor an uneasy dynamic balance over apparent certainties. And consistent with his critique of pure reason in "Voltair's Bastards," this leads him to poise classical Socratic doubt against reason and false certitude.
The incautious reader might well rush to accuse Saul of being irrationalist, and his sometimes murky style might reinforce that impression. He is attacking "pure reason" in the sense of clear-cut trees of propositional logic, not human reasoning in the broader sense. He is changing the emphasis regarding what it means to <i>reason</i> from a dependence on logic ... to the reflective use of numerous natural abilities. His main problem here is that he often accomplishes this in a relatively obscure and indirect way.
While it is not as difficult or confusingly complex as Voltaire's Bastards, and is somewhat better focused from the start, it still bears Saul's characteristic meandering ("reflective?") style and will annoy readers who prefer their philosophy to get to the point directly.
Saul deliberately avoids clear succinct definitions of his terms, even tentative definitions, and this makes reading this book somewhat like filling in a crossword puzzle. You are never completely sure what he means by his central terms like "memory" or "reason" or "common sense" until you see them contrasted with each other in other chapters. When you see all the other intersecting lines filled in, you can begin to guess at the missing word.
The result is a writing style that eventually rewards your patient efforts at reading and reflecting, but will probably fend off the less reflective reader very early on.
I recommend this book to fans of Saul, fans of difficult crossword puzzles, and others who enjoy rich, complex philosophical perspectives on human nature and human social interdependence. It is not at all technical, but still a difficult book requiring some patience and even some re-reading at times.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
It's true; we need each other
12 Jan 2005
Format:Hardcover
Saul's main idea is that there are six qualities - common sense, ethics, imagination, intuition, memory, reason - we need to keep in appropriate balance ("equilibrium") if we are to live in prosperity and peace. What this comes down to in overly simple terms is that we need to be aware that other people have points of view that are not identical to ours, but are not all that distant, either. In other words, we should pay attention to, and take seriously, what others have to say. Saul believes that when we make wealth our primary goal, we ignore the differences presented by others and force the world into our vision of it. This makes for dullness. He has a great point; we don't reach the good life by marching to our own beat. We get their by sharing shoes with others. The book can be frustrating at times, since he digresses every now and then. But there are many gems.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.5 Stars...Good Ideas But Poorly Executed
24 Dec 2010
Format:Hardcover
Saul's overall idea of a balanced humanism is a good idea. He thinks that living in a way that balances the employment of six qualities will achieve a greater humanism. This is a very interesting idea. The disappointment is the fact that he does not develop this concept well enough, in my opinion, writing a lackluster book that just doesn't seem to ever drive home his ideas. This is puzzling, because he makes these very quotable statements, but, everywhere else, writes a fairly disorganized and vague book that bounces around.
Another pro and con is in Saul's scholarship that he infuses in this book. On one hand, he cites many thinkers and uses these to present a strong context for his thoughts. In other places, he doesn't reference quotes, which left me unsure of from where they came. Having read some authors extensively, and finding that Saul uses interesting quotes from those authors that I had not previously encountered, made me curious of their origin. I would blush if I wrote a work that lacked so many necessary citations.
I think the real wonder of this book is marred by Saul's inability to really formulate a convincing discourse. what I am talking about is "reason." I think that future historians will refer to our era as "The Age of Reason," and probably in the perjorative sense. Just as rationalism was dismantled by transcendental philosophy and logical positivism abrogated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, I am confident that our current idea that "all is reducible to reason" will go to the way side, eventually. After all, the importance of the phenomenal world, and axioms chosen, precede the actual reasoning structure. I just didn't think Saul put into perspect the modern misuse of and misconception of reason. We live in a time where our courts of law always ask "What was person X's reason for killing person Y?" The problem is that, in some (possibly many) cases, there is not reason. I think Saul would have profitted greatly from using Voltaire's Pangloss to make his point better than he did. Our culture is seemingly structured in such a way as to turn all youths into college professors, an actuality that can never be. Sir Ken Robinson has made this point, and well made, I think. However, Saul does not use any of this to get his point across. His chapter on reason makes me feel, at times, as though he is "in hate" with reason. I know this is not the case, but do all of his readers know this?
Humanism is an important movement, and it is one that I think all people need to examine, whether religious, atheist, or just a spiritual person. Optimizing human being is an enrichment that is crucial to the content of human integrity.
Another pro and con is in Saul's scholarship that he infuses in this book. On one hand, he cites many thinkers and uses these to present a strong context for his thoughts. In other places, he doesn't reference quotes, which left me unsure of from where they came. Having read some authors extensively, and finding that Saul uses interesting quotes from those authors that I had not previously encountered, made me curious of their origin. I would blush if I wrote a work that lacked so many necessary citations.
I think the real wonder of this book is marred by Saul's inability to really formulate a convincing discourse. what I am talking about is "reason." I think that future historians will refer to our era as "The Age of Reason," and probably in the perjorative sense. Just as rationalism was dismantled by transcendental philosophy and logical positivism abrogated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, I am confident that our current idea that "all is reducible to reason" will go to the way side, eventually. After all, the importance of the phenomenal world, and axioms chosen, precede the actual reasoning structure. I just didn't think Saul put into perspect the modern misuse of and misconception of reason. We live in a time where our courts of law always ask "What was person X's reason for killing person Y?" The problem is that, in some (possibly many) cases, there is not reason. I think Saul would have profitted greatly from using Voltaire's Pangloss to make his point better than he did. Our culture is seemingly structured in such a way as to turn all youths into college professors, an actuality that can never be. Sir Ken Robinson has made this point, and well made, I think. However, Saul does not use any of this to get his point across. His chapter on reason makes me feel, at times, as though he is "in hate" with reason. I know this is not the case, but do all of his readers know this?
Humanism is an important movement, and it is one that I think all people need to examine, whether religious, atheist, or just a spiritual person. Optimizing human being is an enrichment that is crucial to the content of human integrity.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
