Book Analysis
Here is the way to think of the book review: imagine another student who is at about your academic level
and who shares similar interests to you. This student sees you reading the book you’ve chosen and asks
the usual questions, “What is that book about? Is it any good?” Your book review answers these two
questions. First, “What is that book about? Here, you summarize the key philosophical points in the book as
you see them. This summary should be at least four pages in length. (Use normal size font. You may single
space as you did with the reflection papers.) I am looking for thoughtful and accurate summaries of the
book. The summaries should be as complete as possible in four pages.
Then answer, "Is the book any good?" Here, you evaluate the book: what are the books strengths and
weaknesses? What would you have liked to see more of or less of in the book? What would you have liked
to have seen changed in the book? Evaluate the book according to the “stoplight method”: Green-light (you
would definitely recommend the book to your friend); Yellow-light (you recommend the book with some
qualifications. Be sure to state what those qualifications are.) And Red-light (you would not recommend that
your friend read the book.) In addition, you can use a “Flashing Green-light” (You not only recommend your
friend read the book—you insist on it. The book is that good!) And “Flashing Red-light” (The book is so bad
that not only do you recommend that your friend not read the book, but you insist that your friend should
stay at least 20 feet away from the book in order not to be contaminated by it.)
Be sure you explain as fully as possible your objective evaluation for the book. A book review goes beyond
subjective opinions, "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." As I have said in class, I utilize the information in book
reviews to determine which books I will continue to recommend to future classes. Thus, I take seriously
what you say in the reviews.
“Substantial” refers to the book’s length. This means that it will take you at least a few days to read the
book, it cannot be read in one or even two evenings. Previously, I kept getting students rushing into my
office, two days before the book review was due, exclaiming, “I need a book to read!” So, now I say,
"Choose a book and start on it early. If you don't like the original book, then select another approved book."
Approved Books for Book Review:
Tom Wolfe's, A Man in Full
Robert Pirsig's, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Henry David Thoreau, Walden ( Concentrate on Chapters I, II, XI & XVIII)
Joe Dominguez & Vicki Robin, Your Money or Your Life.
Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World.
Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy A readable popular history of Philosophy. (Skip Chapter VIII, read only
Bergson in Chapter X)
Sample Solution
hirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).