I am a retired engineer who was raised in the Catholic faith. Like many of my era I gradually became aware of the inconsistencies and far-fetched nature of religion and lost faith in those doctrines. Also like many in my era, I gravitated towards eastern religions, especially Buddhism (without the incarnation which I also find far-fetched). In recent years I have read the Roman philosophies (stoicism, epicureanism, among others). This book by Haaglund has allowed me to see all of these "options" in a new light. I can see now that what they all have in common is that they seek to deaden the pain of our mortal existence by providing some form of detachment or relief from the here and now and promise an eventual "eternity". The author's concept of "secular faith" is more positive in that it seeks to affirm life rather than escape from it.
I have been able to accept the fact of no supernatural deity for quite some time. In recent years I have read 3 of the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens). I found them very helpful and do not consider them too "strident" which is the common rap. However, simply accepting the fact of no deity does not build a coherent philosophy and morality for life. What I realize as an older individual is that the religious teachings I received (which ranged from the sublime to the superstitious) run deep throughout my memories, attitudes and consciousness and are not easily erased. I know that many religious teachers meant well, but I regret the fact that I am left with a mishmash of incoherent concepts and outright falsehoods.
What I see Martin Haaglund doing in this book is building a solid foundation of concepts, a life philosophy and a political philosophy, both built on truth. To me, these concepts ring true. He writes very clearly and uses repetition to drive points home. I did find it tough sledding at some points. Forging on, I found that he reliably combines the constituent thoughts into a coherent whole which is powerful.
I see that the logical progression to the author's concept of "democratic socialism" is the idea that most reviewers take issue with. I think this is because it seems so unlikely that we could reach this point, especially in the US. Better to suggest a little more "redistribution" many say, because this is a concept that people are somewhat comfortable with. But if you don't have a clear destination in mind, you are not likely to get there. Also, as many have said, if you begin your political bargaining with a watered-down version of what you truly believe is best, you are likely to come away with very little.
I wish I had read this book as a young man. Like Martin Luther King, I sense that I "may not get there with you" (to democratic socialism I mean). I welcome the idea of asking human beings to be honest with themselves and accept the finitude of life. As the author so aptly puts it, realization of our finitude may bring a sense of anxiety, but that anxiety causes us to focus on the limited time we have to enjoy life and accomplish good things together.
In conclusion I would say that the author provides us with a solid, coherent and consistent foundation upon which to build our own philosophy of life. Foundations are extremely important, as even the biblical parable points out. In my opinion the concepts presented in this book are more likely to withstand the storm and the ravages of time than anything I find in the bible.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
Great on Kindle
Great Experience. Great Value.
Putting our best book forward
Each Great on Kindle book offers a great reading experience, at a better value than print to keep your wallet happy.
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Get the free Kindle app: 
Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book.
Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.
Additional Details
Small Business
Shop products from small business brands sold in Amazon’s store. Discover more about the small businesses partnering with Amazon and Amazon’s commitment to empowering them.
Small Business
This product is from a small business brand. Support small.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Limited-Time Offer
Join Audible Premium Plus for 60% off. Get this deal
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Customer reviews
First of all the book cover is beautiful and I found the concepts of secular faith and spiritual freedom very useful. Secular faith is the commitment to spend our finite lives in a certain way despite the risk of failure and the certainty of death. Spiritual freedom is consciously deciding upon a way of being through self-reflection instead of going with the flow and letting others (or our natural drives) decide.My main critiques concern later parts of the book where he decides to take a Marx-inspired economic stance (and misunderstands much of capitalism). Although his intentions are good (and I share many of them), he does plenty of wishful thinking.1. “The point of wealth under capitalism is to accumulate more wealth, not to use it as a means for a meaningful end” (p. 259). This is patently untrue. The goal of firms is to seek profits because this keeps them afloat, but the individuals in the firm seek profit for the sake of improving their opportunities and quality of life. His argument (or assertion) is not convincing.2. “The exploitation of workers is necessary under capitalism, since only the extraction of surplus value can generate any form of surplus wealth.” The term ‘exploitation’ here does not mean unfair (also the author seems to think it does), rather that the employer receives some of the worker’s productivity as a payment for granting the worker opportunity to work.3. He argues for democratic socialism (not redistribution which I favor, but collective ownership of the means of production). The reason this is wishful thinking is that it does not deal with human nature. People generally are not motivated to work hard for the benefit of other people who are not part of their tribe. Profit is a way of convincing entrepreneurs to provide goods and services to others. He writes that “under democratic socialism, everyone would have... a collective commitment... our democratic state provides” (p. 305). Here we deal with the free rider dilemma (everyone will prefer that someone else works instead) and agency costs (a state may use its power to enrich itself instead of serving the people). None of these basic microeconomic issues are dealt with. Instead the author has “secular faith” that this system works. This is not to say that democratic socialism is unachievable, but it requires real arguments instead of wishful thinking.4. He asserts both that ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ (p.307) & “no one is forced to participate in social labor” (p.308). Either we force people with ability to work, or we change the motto: “From each according to his altruistic motivation, to each according to his needs.” Like I said before, there are reasons why socialism works in small tribes but does not scale up to modern societies.To end on a positive note, there are many useful ideas in this book. We should definitely measure our success as a society based on the quantity and quality of our free time instead of using measures of production. Further, we should make sure our economic system serves our people. This means keeping the market dynamic and competitive (preventing the government from providing special favors to interest groups and corporations), carefully regulating markets with information asymmetries (health care and finance, for instance), and sharing the fruits of our collective labor through redistribution.In sum, this book is good philosophy but bad economics.
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on June 5, 2019
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 8, 2019
My main critiques concern later parts of the book where he decides to take a Marx-inspired economic stance (and misunderstands much of capitalism). Although his intentions are good (and I share many of them), he does plenty of wishful thinking.
1. “The point of wealth under capitalism is to accumulate more wealth, not to use it as a means for a meaningful end” (p. 259). This is patently untrue. The goal of firms is to seek profits because this keeps them afloat, but the individuals in the firm seek profit for the sake of improving their opportunities and quality of life. His argument (or assertion) is not convincing.
2. “The exploitation of workers is necessary under capitalism, since only the extraction of surplus value can generate any form of surplus wealth.” The term ‘exploitation’ here does not mean unfair (also the author seems to think it does), rather that the employer receives some of the worker’s productivity as a payment for granting the worker opportunity to work.
3. He argues for democratic socialism (not redistribution which I favor, but collective ownership of the means of production). The reason this is wishful thinking is that it does not deal with human nature. People generally are not motivated to work hard for the benefit of other people who are not part of their tribe. Profit is a way of convincing entrepreneurs to provide goods and services to others. He writes that “under democratic socialism, everyone would have... a collective commitment... our democratic state provides” (p. 305). Here we deal with the free rider dilemma (everyone will prefer that someone else works instead) and agency costs (a state may use its power to enrich itself instead of serving the people). None of these basic microeconomic issues are dealt with. Instead the author has “secular faith” that this system works. This is not to say that democratic socialism is unachievable, but it requires real arguments instead of wishful thinking.
4. He asserts both that ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ (p.307) & “no one is forced to participate in social labor” (p.308). Either we force people with ability to work, or we change the motto: “From each according to his altruistic motivation, to each according to his needs.” Like I said before, there are reasons why socialism works in small tribes but does not scale up to modern societies.
To end on a positive note, there are many useful ideas in this book. We should definitely measure our success as a society based on the quantity and quality of our free time instead of using measures of production. Further, we should make sure our economic system serves our people. This means keeping the market dynamic and competitive (preventing the government from providing special favors to interest groups and corporations), carefully regulating markets with information asymmetries (health care and finance, for instance), and sharing the fruits of our collective labor through redistribution.
In sum, this book is good philosophy but bad economics.
Good philosophy, bad economics
By Josh on April 8, 2019
First of all the book cover is beautiful and I found the concepts of secular faith and spiritual freedom very useful. Secular faith is the commitment to spend our finite lives in a certain way despite the risk of failure and the certainty of death. Spiritual freedom is consciously deciding upon a way of being through self-reflection instead of going with the flow and letting others (or our natural drives) decide.By Josh on April 8, 2019
My main critiques concern later parts of the book where he decides to take a Marx-inspired economic stance (and misunderstands much of capitalism). Although his intentions are good (and I share many of them), he does plenty of wishful thinking.
1. “The point of wealth under capitalism is to accumulate more wealth, not to use it as a means for a meaningful end” (p. 259). This is patently untrue. The goal of firms is to seek profits because this keeps them afloat, but the individuals in the firm seek profit for the sake of improving their opportunities and quality of life. His argument (or assertion) is not convincing.
2. “The exploitation of workers is necessary under capitalism, since only the extraction of surplus value can generate any form of surplus wealth.” The term ‘exploitation’ here does not mean unfair (also the author seems to think it does), rather that the employer receives some of the worker’s productivity as a payment for granting the worker opportunity to work.
3. He argues for democratic socialism (not redistribution which I favor, but collective ownership of the means of production). The reason this is wishful thinking is that it does not deal with human nature. People generally are not motivated to work hard for the benefit of other people who are not part of their tribe. Profit is a way of convincing entrepreneurs to provide goods and services to others. He writes that “under democratic socialism, everyone would have... a collective commitment... our democratic state provides” (p. 305). Here we deal with the free rider dilemma (everyone will prefer that someone else works instead) and agency costs (a state may use its power to enrich itself instead of serving the people). None of these basic microeconomic issues are dealt with. Instead the author has “secular faith” that this system works. This is not to say that democratic socialism is unachievable, but it requires real arguments instead of wishful thinking.
4. He asserts both that ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ (p.307) & “no one is forced to participate in social labor” (p.308). Either we force people with ability to work, or we change the motto: “From each according to his altruistic motivation, to each according to his needs.” Like I said before, there are reasons why socialism works in small tribes but does not scale up to modern societies.
To end on a positive note, there are many useful ideas in this book. We should definitely measure our success as a society based on the quantity and quality of our free time instead of using measures of production. Further, we should make sure our economic system serves our people. This means keeping the market dynamic and competitive (preventing the government from providing special favors to interest groups and corporations), carefully regulating markets with information asymmetries (health care and finance, for instance), and sharing the fruits of our collective labor through redistribution.
In sum, this book is good philosophy but bad economics.
Images in this review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on May 25, 2019
Top reviews from other countries
David Hodsall
An important, but eminently readable book
Reviewed in Canada 🇨🇦 on September 6, 2019Sylvestre Guidi
All religions should be banned.
Reviewed in Canada 🇨🇦 on March 29, 2019
