matt_d's review
4.0
"The highest life is probably to be reached, not by imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us, but, while animated by Christ's spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of the age, and adopting modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live, still laboring for the good of our fellows, which was the essence of His life and teaching, but laboring in a different manner."
nkprasad12's review
4.0
A lot of the ideas appear quite elitist from a modern lens, but we need to take into account the context of when it was written and for whom. Carnegie's support of a wealth tax to spur charitable giving amongst the mega-rich is a useful voice even today, while his ideas on exactly what to spend charity on feel a bit dated.
chewdigestbooks's review
4.0
Understandably, the language is dated, yet the theory still stands correctly in my mind. If you are one of the 1%, use your wealth before your death to contribute to causes that will touch and change more people. Like Carnegie did with his libraries then and Bill Gates and his wife are doing now.
By setting that up before death, you are not only in charge of your idea to alleviate confusion or will battles later, you will see the benefits now rather than after you are gone. Look at Stanford, The Cooper Institute, The University of Chicago, and others. They are all still going strong, were started during their original endowers lifetimes, and continue to touch the lives of many, giving more a step up, rather than choosing one particular group or issue and relieving that.
While he does echo the Victorian idea of helping only the "morally deserving" at times which is horrible religious nonsense, the general idea is really sound. Touch the most people in the most life-changing way, so they can achieve more and hopefully do the same in their lifetimes. Give them a hand up, not a handout, as frigging horrible and judgemental as that simplicity sounds.
Also, don't leave gads of money to your children that will only ruin them and make them not want to try and carve their own lives out. Yes, give them enough to comfortably live on, yet no crazy ostentatiousness that makes the wealthy rightly targets for scorn. (Like Mr. I'll have everything in gold, Trump, for example. Had to be said.)
By setting that up before death, you are not only in charge of your idea to alleviate confusion or will battles later, you will see the benefits now rather than after you are gone. Look at Stanford, The Cooper Institute, The University of Chicago, and others. They are all still going strong, were started during their original endowers lifetimes, and continue to touch the lives of many, giving more a step up, rather than choosing one particular group or issue and relieving that.
While he does echo the Victorian idea of helping only the "morally deserving" at times which is horrible religious nonsense, the general idea is really sound. Touch the most people in the most life-changing way, so they can achieve more and hopefully do the same in their lifetimes. Give them a hand up, not a handout, as frigging horrible and judgemental as that simplicity sounds.
Also, don't leave gads of money to your children that will only ruin them and make them not want to try and carve their own lives out. Yes, give them enough to comfortably live on, yet no crazy ostentatiousness that makes the wealthy rightly targets for scorn. (Like Mr. I'll have everything in gold, Trump, for example. Had to be said.)
More...