In a warm and enjoyable dialogue the meaning of health, in its fullest sense, becomes a philosophical issue as much as a biological. For isn't the essence of health a general sense of well-being? Health can be seen as reflecting satisfaction with our quality of life; but how do we achieve that? Here, a character who is heading off for a job teaching health has an extended conversation with a trusted mentor, and they test various definitions, various visions, and some (...) of the infinite possibilities of the idea of health, in the process coming to a deeper and more invigorating understanding of life itself. They arrive at the notion of symbiosis - a living together to the advantage of each. And isn't a good conversation a sort of living together to the advantage of each? In such dialogue, we engage with our hearts and minds. When are we more alive than that? What is the peak of health if not this life, this engagement? The two friends want to know what health is. But they want more: They want to be healthy. They see three basic types of health - bodily, mental, and societal. These three types affect one another. How they affect one another matters in a critical way. But there is more. A friendly conversation allows special access to what is critical. Our guard is down in such a conversation. We are less likely to be defensive. We are more likely to keep our minds open and clear. We are likely to feel the confidence it takes to learn. (shrink)

Life works best when people value us for more than our looks. In these pages, Model and a philosopher friend reflect on the subtleties of life, revealing insights and finding ways to develop deeper, more meaningful ties with our own inner self and the other people in our lives.

A philosophical treatment of the idea of authority, this book is a dialogue between three characters. "Director," a philosopher, challenges the others to think through their ideas of authority, how it is established, how it works, and how it can be either subtle or bold.

Three characters with different skills and outlooks explore the idea of education, exploring what true education is, challenging common conceptions and putting forward rich definitions of education and what it ideally would be.

The notion of 'freedom' is essential to America's view of itself as a democratic and individual-based society. In this philosophical dialogue, characters assess the many facets, implications and apparent contradictions inherent in this deceptively complex idea. Seventy-nine short segments provide food for thought even in stolen moments of reading pleasure. The book sparkles with intellectually stimulating views. Drawing on the tradition of the Platonic dialogue, 'On Freedom' explores what freedom is and what it means through the discussions of two characters (...) (Director and Friend). Topics include Slavery, Responsibility, Anarchy, Wealth, Love, Courage, Authority, Inhibition, Happiness, Discipline, Vigilance. The characters arrive at no simple or absolute definition of freedom. But that doesn't mean they don't finish with a better idea of what freedom is than when they started. If anything, they come to appreciate the need for clarity about their subject. And they come to see that such clarity necessarily involves complexity. Readers with no philosophical training can enjoy this book, while readers with a philosophy background can enjoy the way it treats an old, familiar theme with a lighter touch. Families will value 'On Freedom' for enabling younger readers, too, to explore philosophic ideas of general interest and importance. (shrink)

A philosophical treatment of ideas, the book presents a philosophical dialogue much in the spirit of classical philosophical dialogues, notably those of Plato and Xenophon. As those authors do in a number of their works, Nick Pappas adopts a light and playful tone to treat a serious topic. This contrast helps bring out the truth, in an approachable style that requires no prior exposure to philosophy and heavy intellectual work.

Is it always better to be active than passive? Is passivity a sign of cowardice - or prudence? Are people who keep their thoughts to themselves passive, or might they be actively preparing for well-considered future actions? Seemingly simple concepts turn out to be deeper and more significant than they first appear.

Killing the Arab Spring tells the stories of the Arab Spring uprising in 15 Middle East states, from the point of view of a secular Middle Eastern political analyst familiar with the politics, the culture of the people and the history of the area. Dr. Hasan views the vast majority of the Arab rulers deriving their absolute authority from inheritance or military coups, or in the case of the Saudis from conquest, not at the pleasure of the governed. Arab leaders (...) do not believe that government is a trust on behalf of the people. They believe that if there is democracy and their societies are composed of equal and competing individuals, there will be a tendency towards anarchy. People involved in the Arab Spring uprisings demanded inclusive and equitable democracy, social justice and economic development. There were no civil society institutions strong enough to challenge the weapons of authoritarianism that included ideology, repression, payoffs and the solidarity of the crony capitalists. The author argues that Saddam Hussein’s 1980 war on Iran was the spark that started a chain of bloody wars and events which eventually led to the US invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring uprisings. The revolts and the counter revolts took different forms in each country based on its history, the type of government and the economy. The author argues that the Arab Spring is a step of a long process toward democracy rather than an aberration between periods of authoritarian regimes. To understand the Arab Spring causes and its aftermath, the book provides the reader with a review of the Middle East common culture that includes the history of Islamic religion, Islamic-sects and Arab tribalism, and brief history of each country. There are few activities more controversial than writing history of a nation involved in a conflict. Even while witnessing history unfolding in a country, different historians provide different narratives, different causes and different conclusions. This becomes more obvious when the history of the conflicts is viewed through the prism of the politics of sectarianism ethnicity and tribalism. The author strives for an objective view, but he does not hide his strong support to liberal democracy and human rights. (shrink)

Violence and reason are related, if only because violence is done to reason every single day. All it takes is to fail to listen. Everything else, all the real violence, starts right there, including tough talk in lieu of rational argument and the violence of not allowing us to think things through. In a virtual conversation with other thoughtful people, we can evaluate and refine our own positions, gaining clarity and confidence.

"Rule" adopts the tradition of political philosophy begun by Socrates, refined by Xenophon and Plato. The book concentrates on something the characters call life-without-rule. What would that be? Is it a sort of utopia? How does it differ from anarchy? What makes it so appealing and what are the trade-offs?