Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
The Force of Truth
A "who's who" among microscopic and slightly larger animals, telling how they eat and reproduce.
The Seeker and the Monk
WINNER of the 2021 Thomas Merton Award awarded by The International Thomas Merton Society What if we truly belong to each other? What if we are all walking around shining like the sun? Mystic, monk, and activist Thomas Merton asked those questions in the twentieth century. Writer Sophfronia Scott is asking them today. In The Seeker and the Monk, Scott mines the extensive private journals of one of the most influential contemplative thinkers of the past for guidance on how to live in these fraught times. As a Black woman who is not Catholic, Scott both learns from and pushes back against Merton, holding spirited, and intimate conversations on race, ambition, faith, activism, nature, prayer, friendship, and love. She asks: What is the connection between contemplation and action? Is there ever such a thing as a wrong answer to a spiritual question? How do we care about the brutality in the world while not becoming overwhelmed by it? By engaging in this lively discourse, readers will gain a steady sense of how to dwell more deeply within--and even to love--this despairing and radiant world.
War Discourse in Four Paradoxes: the Case of Thomas Scott (1602) and the Digges (1604)
In 1602 and 1604 two collections of paradoxes, both entitled Four Paradoxes, authored by Thomas Scott, and Thomas and Dudley Digges, respectively, were published. Scott, a Protestant preacher, wrote four poems about art, law, war, and service. On the other hand, the diplomat and intellectual Dudley Digges published his father’s two paradoxes about the art of war together with his own two texts concerning the worthiness of war and warriors. What do these two collections of paradoxes have in common, and why publishing their critical edition together? Apparently, besides sharing the same title, the two works do not seem to have anything else in common. Nevertheless, this modern spelling critical edition of both texts aims at demonstrating that they share political, cultural, and genre-related features connected with the circulation of paradoxical discourse about war in early modern England.
