<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Without Bhagavad Gita/ Gandhi writings
Review: I am surprised and did not find any reason why the author choosed not to mention even the names of either the Great Bhagavad Gita or the Great Gandhism writings. How can any book titled as above can begin or conclude without Gita/Gandhi.
It is very much disappointing.
Rating: 
Summary: Why did I waste my money?
Review: I recently purchased a large set of the classics and I wanted a companion book that would give me short educational insight to many of the works. I quickly realized this book was a poor choice. The author made every attempt to tear down the Christian faith, many times by promoting the heretical beliefs of the Gnostics. He also pointlessly tried to denegrate the divinely insprired relationship between the Old and New Testaments. These are just some of many ideas propagated which disturbed me. I realize my disgust with the book may be a result of my personal beliefs being called into question, however, the author seems to have very strong beliefs also. Unfortunately, his beliefs appear to be based in utter disdain for the Christian faith; usually the result of a life of spiritual denial. My beliefs, however, are the results of a changed life and eternal hope.
Rating: 
Summary: 3 Stars if you have a BA in Philosophy, 1 if you don't
Review: I struggled through the enitre book, and then read all the comments here, and the sum total of all of this is as follows:
1. Seymour Smith does suffer for the same impenetrable prose that he castigates many of the authors he is writing about, especially, as mentioned before, the lengthy sentence structure he is in love with. (As you can see, it is contagious)
2. Anyone who has not read at least 20% of the books in the table of contents need not try this book until they have. Smith is tracking influences in western thought and without a BA in Philosophy, you may not stand a chance
3. He is an agnostic liberal, and not liberal in the American Dem/Rep fashion, but as in liberal like a British left Labour type. His suggested venom towards the church, to be fair about it, is based mostly on judgements of the behavoir of the Catholic Church from 800 - 1700, which almost everyone can agree was not their finest hour.
4. His comments on Gnosticism are interesting as he sees a tie in between it and many of the undelying themes of modern religions. I would suggest anyone interested in this actually do some original source reading with an open mind. Smith does at least point you in some good directions for that.
5. Be prepared to consult a dictionary to define some words chosen by Smith. Also, many of the reviews expect that you have read the work in question. One unfortunately gets the feeling that Smith is sometimes either trying to show off his knowledge, or like many professors (and some I met at Oxford) one who just likes to hear himself talk.
In summation, the earlier the entry the better. His reviews of ancient literature are the best in the book, as he focuses much more on thinkers than pieces. However, by the end of the book, when he is discussing books that obviously had an impact on him as they were written, his prejudices against the authors are much more implicit. This is especially true is his feeble attempts to explain modern psycholgy, physics, and most of all, economics.
Read it if you are already well versed in the history of philosophy and want a new viewpoint on some old arguments. Use it as a guide for some items you might want to read in their original form. But, if you are looking for the Cliff's Notes of these books, keep on trucking...
They are not to be found here...
Rating: 
Summary: highly opinionated is really an understatement. smile
Review: If you want a dry philosophy text book that is stuffy and sensitive to the status quo then this book isn't for you. Seymour-Smith is really hard on the establishment, particularly the Christian establishment. He's not over fond of Political Correctness either. In a book that deals with epistemology I found his being highly opinionated most refreshing, another reason that I highly recommend this book: Seymour-Smith can be really funny.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money.
Review: If you're gnostic or New Ager, you'll love this book. It will reinforce your concepts and ideas with no material evidence. However, if you're atheist, jew, muslim, christian, whatever, you'll regret of having bought this book.
Instead of reviewing the ideas and posting a brief story of the life of the 100 most influential books of mankind authors, Mr. Seymour-Smith exposes his own thoughts and beliefs about these 100 books. He does not quote any bibliographic citations. He does not follow any scientific criteria to list a book and not to list another one.
In other words, this is an excelent book to learn what Mr. Seymour-Smith thinks -- and I was not interested on it at all. But it's not a digest of the most influential books of mankind, as the title suggests.
DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY. DON'T BUY IT.
Rating:
Summary: anti-Semitic garbage
Review: Most of what needs to be said about this collection has been stated in the other reviews. I saw this book and thought "what a great idea!" After reading the introduction and first few selections, I knew there was an agenda floating about. There are run-on sentences all throughout the book, and his overwhelming personal bias is just too hard to look past. Had this book been called "The 100 books I think are important, by M. Smith," then I could have dealt with this better.
Alas...
Rating: 
Summary: Good book to start a discussion....
Review: Mr. Cummings summed it the best. For me, this was a great book in topic and style. I found his writing very challenging. Not many of today's critics are as challenging in their books (just pick up the ridiculous NY Times Book Review) as Mr. Seymour-Smith. I agree that he stands strong against the Church and if you this should cause some discomfort to your beliefs, then don't read the book, or at least skip the titles that deal with the subject. I highly recommend this book to anyone who, like myself, is trying to understand human nature !!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Inspiration for the unintentionally ignorant
Review: OK, so it's full of run-on (and on and on and on....) sentences, and it has an abundance of Christian-bashing (although raised a Christian, I did find myself agreeing with the author most of the time), and he did leave out the other Little Red Book, by Harvey Penick, but how can you not appreciate the sheer girth of this guy's insight into all of these.... Sorry, I'd better end this sentence and start a new one. You see, not only have I read it through twice, but this book is a mainstay next to the toilet. Despite its obvious flaws, this collection of 100 refreshingly blunt book reports is simply one of the most inspirational things I've ever read. It stunningly reminded me of how limited my influences have been in shaping by beliefs (or lack of), and was instrumental in my decision to get a Masters in Social Science. I'm obviously not speaking to the nit-pickworthy scholars out there, but for the thirsty non-intellectuals ready to realize that most of what we know is what we've been told by other narrow minded (however well meaning) people. And arguing about who or what's left out is a moot point; this book is merely a starting point to expanding our capacity for understanding others. Of course, like Mr. Seymour-Smith's, all this is just my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: anti-Semitic garbage
Review: Seymour-Smith deserves one stars for at least trying to tactical the issue of a top 100 book-list review. However, his failure to list a man's book whom put my aunt in the Warsaw Ghetto and started WWII, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," makes Seymour-Smith's book reek of anti-Semiticism. How somebody can forget a book that lead to the desecration(the "Holocaust"), of the 6 million covenanted ones, is unexplainable and unjustifiable. How can we "never forget" if the book is not there to review, Mr. Seymour-Smith?
Rating:
Summary: Waste of time!
Review: The man dismisses the cherished beliefs of billions in a sentence, brings up famous writers just to trash them, goes on and on about "Gone with the Wind," and offers no evidence to support most of his regal sounding pronouncements. The pompous introduction is fair warning of what the rest of the book will be like. My advice: get the list of books and read them yourself. You won't understand them from this book's descriptions!
<< 1 >>
|
