George Berkeley's early 18th century treatise "Of the Principles of Human Knowledge" was written in response to the current popular philosophical leanings of Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Malebranche, and others. Berkeley's major problem with the philosophy of his age was in its materialist leanings. Berkeley at base had issues with the indefinite nature of philosophical terminology, and the ways in which the foundations of knowledge seemed to be centered on unknowable concepts like 'abstract truths,' 'matter,' and 'absolute' entities. The solution?

Berkeley reasons that philosophy has gotten away from common sense, and that the way to make philosophy and natural science more accessible is to use the vocabulary and understanding of the 'vulgar' masses. Berkeley's philosophy is called Immaterialism. He holds that the only things that can properly be said to exist are 'ideas' and 'spirits.' Ideas are all objects perceived by our five senses or by logic and inference from those objects. Spirits are our minds or souls, those things that perceive, think, and exercise will. He says that all other philosophical terminology only tends to confuse us. We cannot doubt the real existence of anything in the world, because we see, feel, hear, touch, and taste these things every day. What we can doubt are philosophical quandaries like abstract ideas - for existence, while we can think of a particular person in motion, we can neither conceive of a person in abstract nor of motion in general. This, Berkeley contends, is all that common sense gives to the plainest of people. Ordinary people do not doubt the existence of trees or gloves, nor do they conjecture about matter or substrata underlying the things they interact with everyday.

The 'Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous' serve to support the philosophical arguments that Berkeley made in the 'Principles.' Hylas is a materialist, while Philonous represents Berkeley's immaterialist argument. Their three dialogues are extremely entertaining and informative. They compliment the technical philosophy by providing concrete examples, which are many times missing from Berkeley's treatise. While the treatise and the dialogues can be read and understood on their own, the fullest appreciation of Berkelely comes from reading both. One limitation of Berkeley is that his 'vulgar' notions are almost too simplistic. He takes Occom's razor almost to the point of absurdity, which causes him to dispute notions like gravity, which these days one may well frown upon. Other than matters of advanced mathematical or scientific complexity, however, Berkeley's immaterialism seems, on the surface, to make great sense.

Another interesting facet of these two works is their religious component. An Anglican bishop, Berkeley makes use of his belief in God both to support his arguments, and uses immaterialist arguments to simply (far more simply than Descartes) prove the existence of God. Not quite an enthralling read, but, who reads philosophy to be enthralled? The arguments are interesting, the arguments well-supported, and possible objections deftly handled.

I agree with the first reviewer--not a very useful text. More academic than anything else. I pretty much walked away with nothing from this book. Is choppy and just a compilation of various topics written by a variety of authors--it is like reading different research papers. None of the book is integrated. As the first reviewer said, a better book would have been a text written by one author with an integration of ideas.

This book is a compilation of chapters on malingering and deception by leaders in the field. Like all edited works, it suffers from disjunctions in quality and style from chapter to chapter. I was hoping for a practical manual of how to work with clients. Instead, I got a book that is solidly researched but that would appeal more to a researcher than a clinician. I would have preferred a book by a single author who synthesizes the works of leaders in the field. The content is good but one has to do a lot of work to find the clinically useful material. In addition, the concepts do NOT come alive in case examples. Finally, the print is rather tiny, so those over 40 will strain their eyes trying to read the text.

Dr. Rogers certainly knows his "stuff!" Take it from one of those guy's who has "been there and done that." His arrows hit the mark! Deception and malingering, these are not just mere words to echo in the wind. The author walks along side of the reader, while all the while supporting his professional perspectives with documented and keenly researched facts.

Expertise is constantly evident, with solid exploration being given to 1). Where we've been; 2). Where we're at; 3). And, where we're going regarding better detecting the "fakes" and how to best utilize the available wealth of information contained within these pages.

The true magnitude and complexity surrounding this element of psychopathology, etc., to the qualified and perceptive researcher, is crystal clear, indeed.

This book ought to be readily available to all professionals claiming to be experts in this potentially deadly arena of forensics!

Considering that the 1978 Yankee team is my all-time favorite, it was disappointing to realize that the first 200 pages of a roughly 360 page book was NOT really about the 1978 season. Kahn spends those first 200 pages talking about other "miracle" teams and great seasons, the origin of the Yankees, and Yankee owners and players pre-1978. If I hear about the "dreary CBS Yankees" one more time...

If you already have some grasp of baseball and Yankee history, that makes those 200 pages mostly a wash. That stuff, as well as mini-bios of 1978 Yankee ownership, executives, and players, should have been put into the first 10 pages or better integrated into an account of the '78 season.

Beyond that, Kahn seems a bit pompous and playing for history.
He has unfavorable things to say about more than one journalist from the era, while getting in things like how "The Boys of Summer outleaped (the New York) Times Snide and went to the top of the best-seller lists." (p. 247)

Great, Roger, but I was hoping this book would be less about your reminiscing about baseball, Yankee (and some Dodger!) history and more for the educated fan of the 1978 Yankees. "The Bronx Zoo," by Sparky Lyle and Peter Golenbock, while not up to the standard set by "Ball Four" by Jim Bouton, is still your best bet when thinking about picking up a book about the 1978 Yankee squad.

Forests have been leveled to accommodate the number of books that have been written about the New York Yankees especially during the Steinbrenner years, and you have to wonder what can be said that hasn't been written about numerous times before. However, if I were to have only one book on this subject (I have several) this latest offering by Roger Kahn is the one I would choose. I admit to being partial to Kahn's writing in regard to baseball, but he delves into the personalities of George Steinbrenner, Billy Martin, Al Rosen, Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Sparky Lyle, Gabe Paul, Dick Young, Larry MacPhail, and others with anecdotes and humor you probably haven't heard before. This book is littered with stress and alcohol as conflicting personalities clash their way through the 1978 season. Yes, part of the book provides a little history in regard to the Red Sox and Yankees in regard to their previous ownership, but even in this, the author tells these stories with quotes I haven't read in previous books. If you have enjoyed reading other books on this subject, and especially if you enjoy Roger Kahn's writing, this book will not disappoint you.

Roger Kahn, who I consider the best baseball writer of all time, has done it again with October Men. In his gifted, wonderfully unique style, Kahn takes us through the zany 1978 season with the New York Yankees. But the book also gives us insightful backgrounds into the main Yankee characters and an interesting, informative historical perspective on the Yankee dynasty. By far this is his greatest work since The Boys of Summer (and he has had many great books since that 1971 classic) and is a MUST read -- not only for Yankee fans -- but for all sports fans in general. A truly great work from a truly great author.

It was exactly what my history teacher called a "Mickey Mouse Book". This book (in my opinion) is a very good resource item for history if we're talking about with younger kids, but not with teenagers. The sentences are absurdly short and it doesn't really connect the story all that well. The information in it is great if you want to know about what George Rogers Clark and their relating people did during the entire American Revolutionary War, but as I have said before, the sentences are extremely choppy.

This book is a good idea. But there is room for litterature that can tell the same in a more lively way with far fewer words. ...or can tell four time as much with the same number of pages. - The language of most of the authors is such that you wonder WHY they have chocen to say what they attempt to tell in such flowery ways. After a paragraph it's hard to remember "What did he try to tell me now." It's easier to think: "Yes. I can see that you have learnt a hole lot of words, and adjevtives in particular." - I have found litterature about the same topic, put in a different language that manage to do this far better. In fact I've found public reports that with regards to the ability to convey a thought is far more readable.

I had a much harder time getting into this volume than the two previous ones. It is far more limited geographically in that about 90% of it is about France and it is also edited rather poorly: many of the chapters are chock full of vague generalizations that require far more historical knowledge than I had to evaluate them (my failing, perhaps, but also an indication of the level of the book). Finally, many of the chapters were far less fun than the ones in the previous two volumes.

That being said, there are absolutely wonderful nuggets embedded throughout the book. This is, afterall, the era when the individual emerges en masse from the "community" mentality of the middle ages, as the absolutist state (and its embryonic legal system) replaces the more relationship-based bonds of feudal communties. This had innumerable consequences, including the development of public schools on a widespread basis and a sense of justice as administered by the state rather than by a feudal lord who demanded personal loyalty.

THere are also many episodes within this that make for great reading. For example, there is a whole chapter on the development of accepted manners for the middle classes and even below, based on those of the court but also on books on etiquette such as one written by Erasmus himself, which astounded me as I learned its various editions were influential for over 300 years on wuch topics as acceptable table manners. THere were also chapters on charivari - a kind of moralistic razzing of newlyweds that combined extortion and youthful exuberance, carried out as they were (sometimes for months) by amoral thugs! Even the notion of childhood - of the child having a distinctive personality with his/her own requirements and needs - was developed in this period. ANd of course, there is the growth of the practive of friendship by choice, so rare in the middle ages, rather than via kinship ties or feudal obligation, which had subordinated most feelings to the survival of the extended clan.

Nonetheless, these delightful chapters are buried in many dull and poorly written ones that were a terrible slog to get through. I was very disappointed by this, having loved the volumes on the ancient world and the middle ages. Perhaps it was marked by the death of the founding editor. I will try the later volumes, but worry they will not measure up. The title is also misleading: this volume is less about the Renaissance than what followed, that is, the period of religious wars and the development of absolutism.

REcommended to those willing to make the effort, but not for the casual reader.