I dislike this book. When I first started reading it I noticed that there was absolutely no mention of Eastern conceptions of compassion and kindness. That's fine, I thought, it's a short book. I really enjoyed the section titled A Short History of Kindness. But everything that follows is steeped in Freudian claptrap. And it just goes on and on and on. The book is only 114 pages long and I stopped at 60. Instinctually, I think Freud is horseshit. The man's theories in no way correspond to how I view my life. My kindness for others, sorry Mr. Phillips, is in no way part of my sexuality. It is Eastern in its basic nature, it abjures the ego, and is at the heart of all that makes my life wonderful. I refuse to bemerde it with psychoanalytic pettifoggery. One final note: in all of the blurbage, or paratext as Dr. Eco would call it, for this book not once does the word Freud occur. Now, why is that, do you think?

NOT recommended. ( )

I got this book after reading an article on happiness in the Guardian last week. I found that very interesting and this book - this little book which fits the hand so nicely - is also interesting. Makes the point that kindness is related to the words 'kin' and 'kind' in the sense of the same sort. Suggests that fellow feeling is a natural feeling which we have sort of denied in recent times and that kindness is something we like to do, it is good for us and makes us feel good. I am now reading the history behind it and there is a lot of stuff about Rousseau and his thoughts on this - he was a kindness superstar in his time though he farmed out all his children. Another reviewer here got lost in the psychoanalytic material which I have hardly hit yet. ( )

Ethics > Philanthropy - Humanity > Philosophy and Psychology > Social Ethics