BOOKS

Parmenides
Dissertation on Parmenides
This dissertation is an analysis of Plato’s Parmenides based on a new translation of its text. It brings together the features of two earlier interpretations. Just as in the Diés edition, the Greek text and its translation is reproduced side-by-side. Furthermore, just as in Cornford ls interpretation, the text is divided into sections each one immediately followed with its commentary. The dialogue is divided into three parts: I. Difficulties in the theory of Forms (126æ135b), II. Concise statement of the method to solve these difficulties (135c-137c), III. Demonstration of the method to solve these difficulties (137C-166c). The dramatic and the philosophical introductions are treated in the first part. In the first part, Zeno’s reading of his treatise is seen as setting the stage for Socrates's specific context of the presentation of his theory of Forms. Socrates explanation is followed by Parmenides criticism of the theory of Forms. Parmenides, however, recognizes that the existence of the Forms is needed if anyone is going to get to the truth. Parmenides suggests that Socrates's mistake was to engage in definitions of the Forms without proper training
The second part of the dialogue is interpreted as the presentation of a method to solve these difficulties. Parmenides proposes a training base on a succession of deductions. This program is seen as Plato’s approach to dealing with the various entities making up his ontology.
The third part of the dialogue is interpreted as giving an illustration of this method. Parmenides had stated that we could use any Form for our dialectical exercise; however, when we proceed with the exercise, we are not dealing with any single conception of a Form but with various notions of this Form which has arisen in our minds according to the state of the procedure. The conclusion to this dialogue is seen as ostensible. It forces the students to go back to the first part, and with his new gain insight in the theory of Forms, to evaluate Parmenides's criticism.
In each part the interpretations of various commentators (Allen, Cornford, Grote, Miller, Robinson, Ryle, and Zeller) are presented and criticized.

The Enlightenment and Rousseau’s
The First Discourse is not as well-known as Rousseau’s other writings. However, its importance should not be ignored. The First Discourse shows that the survival of a state depends on the civic virtue of its members, on its good citizenship. During Rousseau’s lifetime, one could look back at the progress made in the Arts during the Renaissance and the achievement of natural science in the seventeen century. These achievements had eclipsed the importance of Man. Rousseau believed that a defense of civic virtue, of good citizenship, was needed to reestablish a proper balance between Man and the Arts and Sciences. In his defense of good citizenship, Rousseau supports his position with reference to many historical events. A general history of Man’s place in history is required for a good understanding of Rousseau’s First Discourse.

Castle Garden and Immigration
The History of Immigration in the United Sates may be divided into three periods. From 1609 to 1890, there were no federal laws governing admissions of immigrants. Each state was left on its own to deal with immigration. New York state welcome immigrants, excluding only those who could become a burden on the community. From 1890 to 1921, the federal government took over immigration. The federal immigration laws focused on what categories of immigrants to exclude. Finally, from 1921 to the present, it is the opposite. Federal laws focus on what categories of immigrants to admit. This book focuses on the first period of immigration, mainly New York Immigration, 1820-1855. The main event during those years set the foundation for the opening of Castle Garden, an experiment that had a great influence on successive systems of immigration.