To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Levin has a very poor understanding of the philosophers he criticizes. Levin explains the forefathers relied on Natural Law (pp. 9) as defined by Locke. However Locke never had any examples of what natural law was. At the time, anthropology hadn’t begun and the English never really appreciated any other society’s ideas that well. It’s safe to say that the English believed they had the one right way. That’s why it was their interests to colonize and civilize the world. “More than that, Locke at times seems to appeal to innate ideas in the Second Treatise (2.11), and in The Reasonableness of Christianity (Works 7:139) he admits that no one has ever worked out all of natural law from reason alone.” Locke would say that all people are naturally endowed with reason. Locke adds Natural Law can be known by reason (pp. 11). Toward the end of his career he doubted that he could come up with any examples of Natural Law. Ergo Locke lacked reason.
To summarize Levin’s review of Hegel: Levin summarizes Hegel; quotes Hegel; shows one critique by Popper to refute Hegel’s acceptance of contradictions (loosely related to his political argument; pp. 102); and then quotes Popper as saying that there is danger in accepting Hegel (pp. 106). Was Levin hoping to show Hegel was wrong? Not sure. What was Levin trying to do here?
In response to Marx, Levin suggests that man’s struggle is well beyond economics and materialism (pp. 108). Levin does a good job to explain that it could be anything and he is right to do so. However, I believe it’s very common sense to view it as a class struggle in society where the lower classes are trying to achieve higher classes or higher statuses from the family or background which they originated. This is especially true in industrial and post-industrial countries. Why else would people go to university? Move to other cities to get better jobs? Any economist will tell you and for as much as I have read in economics: people in general are more motivated by money than psychological factors, values, race, religion, tribalism, geography or any other recorded factor. There might be other factors that we haven’t thought of yet, but none to date can match the power of economic thinking in men generally. Most people want to get ahead in the world. Levin should really address the whole field of economics here before he suggests these things, not just Marx.
Levin writes, “In fact, most proletariats don’t feel terrorized by the bourgeoisie and therefore do not spontaneously rise to the revolutionary cause; also, most bourgeoisies are not terrorizing their employees or tenants.” (pp. 112-3). Nowhere does the Communist Manifesto does it use the word terror to describe the relationship between the B. and the P. To me, there is a huge difference between terrorizing and exploiting. The difference apparently doesn’t exist for Levin.
Levin writes that "progressive" philosophers offer “a whirlwind of ideological concepts and impossibilities.” (pp. 120). He’s made no attempt to show us how these are impossibilities. Levin made no comment on post-WWII progressive philosophers other than Dewey and what they see as possible. Dewey didn’t publish any books after the war concerning politics. If progressivism’s views are changing, then how about include a more contemporary author?
Levin writes “[Progressives] also understandably will want to align themselves with administrative science and reason, with the extraordinary progress made by physical sciences during the past several centuries and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason is all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason” (pp. 126). There’s a lot in this quote. First off, why not use science and reason? Locke surely felt he was using reason. The founding fathers did. Why is it that reason stopped after the signing of the declaration and reason stops after every amendment was signed? After that, we should accept someone’s reason from 250 years ago? Why not accept reason from 300 years ago and call it tradition? What is known as reason changes all the time. What makes the reason at the time of 1776 more special than any other time in history?
Toute personne interessee par les USA doit acheter ce livre qui couvre de nombreux sujets de facon objective en utilisant des faits historiques et qui explique ce qu'est le conservatisme Americain de facon tres intelligible. Il faut par contre maitriser la langue et connaitres certains aspects culturels pour bien tout comprendre et participer au debat qui en decoule.