Do the senses inhibit are judgement or do the senses increase are judgment for a more objective reality? This basic arguement has been debated ever since the time of Ancient Greece. As more research shows, the philosophy of Plato is becoming more real. As children, humans begin to categorize their world, picking out certain characteristics and weeding out other characteristics that are body related. These experiences are image schemas which are non-cultural that everyone experiences but are either used or non-used depending on the social environment that enforces them. Therefore, the objective reality cannot exist since there are characteristics that are eliminated and others that are given importance. Johnson does a superb job in explaining the image schema, that is a most difficult concept to grasp. The mind is is part of the body, not separated from it as shown in this book.

Brain Development and Cognition-A Reader provides a comprehensive overview of key neuropsychological research related to developmental brain plasticity.

Understanding deconstructivist architecture can be daunting at first. Without delving into Jacques Derrida's complicated theories on Deconstructivism, this book offers a good overview from Russian Constructivism to Peter Eisenman's and Phillip Johnson's 1988 MoMA exhit - Deconstructivist Architecture.

The only thing lacking is an update reflecting the current use of Deconstructivist architecture. Has the perception of what conotates Deconstructivist changed in the last decade? Is it now more of an aesthetic reference than a theoretical? A follow-up with the '88 exhibit participants and a more current perspective on the practice is left to be desired.

A very good introduction to all major legal issues presented in what is called Health Care Law. Topics covered include: contractual aspects of the doctor-patient relationship (duty to treat, termination of relations); the legal nature of health care organizations; ERISA preemption; medical malpractice and informed consent; anti-trust; and ethical considerations.

Hundreds of B&W photos. Describes model changes in each year. Not enough detail to perform restoration. Appendix provides a quick reference to options, colors, wheels, chassis numbers. (I did find at least one minor error...the color of my '89 is listed as available only on '87 and '88)

This was an excellent reference! The pictures identifying the differences, between everything from trim pieces to gauges, made it very easy to discern model and year changes. FYI this is mostly for asthetics and options. Not a lot of focus on mechanicals.

Porsches tend to get 'modified' over time, as owners add little touches they think are wonderful, or simply replace parts with the cheapest thing available. This book, part of the Authenticity Series by Beeman Jorgensen, Inc., gives tons of nice black and white photos and listings of what accoutrements came on specific model year 911's, 912E's and 930's. I've used it several times to identify trim pieces and fitment of items for myself and customers. Like the other books in this series, it doesn't do much about mechanical pieces, concentrating on trim and such, but if you want information on mechanicals, there are other books available for that (like the Parts & Technical Reference manuals or Bruce Anderson's book). This will get your car LOOKING right!

I found this to be an excellent book for those with a physics phobia. All theories are explained using simple mathematics thus making it easier to understand. There are several questions worked out with thorough explinations in every chapter and the text explains how each new idea is related to other concepts learned earlier in the book and/or chapter.

There are couple of weaknesses in this text that stand out in my mind. First, there is a section in each chapter that quizes you on conceptual questions but there are no answers in the back of the book making it difficult to be certian about your work. Second, the web page associated with this book is riddled with errors and is not much of a tool. In spite of these problems I would recomend it to someone just starting physics.

While struggling with Giancoli's terrible book, I looked for a better textbook online, and found three other candidates. After buying them all and reviewing them, I returned all of them except for this one.

This is a great physics textbook for those preparing for the MCAT on their own, or for those in an algebra-based physics class. Compared to Giancoli's text, it is fantastic. Why?

1. Plenty of example problems while reading, fully explained in an intelligent and careful manner. Not two or three per chapter, but sometimes ten or more. Again, with exhaustive descriptions.

2. Clear, concise text that truly educates you as you read. Not a rehashed summary of familiar concepts, with important "givens" left out. Some text book authors are simply capable of writing text that teaches (Ege is a great example, for Organic Chemistry). Some should not be writing at all. To be good at physics problems, you first have to understand the concepts. Really understand them. This book explains them the way they need to be explained.

3. Excellent diagrams and tables. At first, I thought the ubiquitous graphics were just eye-candy, as they are (as always, refer to the worst example) in Giancoli's book. But every diagram is useful, and clearly explains a concept.

4. Student Solutions Manual. The most frustrating thing about physics seems to be the unavailability of solutions manuals to go with textbooks. Why this is so, for a field of study that relies so heavily on detailed explanations of problems, makes no sense to me. For all of the other sciences I've studied for preparation for medical school (including calculus), I've easily been able to get my hands on manuals detailing all problems and their solutions. In the realm of physics, though, there seems to exist an elitist attitude that only instructors should have these 'magic books', from which they will dole out a solution or two to desperate students. How colossaly stupid. This textbook is somewhat subject to this failing, in that the Student Solutions Manual contains answers to "selected" problems (roughly 21% per chapter). However, the fact that it has a solutions manual at all lifts it above the other offerings, especially -- you guessed it -- Giancoli's horrible book, which offers no manual to speak of (the "Study Guide" is a useless piece of garbage with no solved problems; don't buy it). In addition, though the solutions manual lacks all the answers, the ones it does have are well-explained and well-drawn, similar to what's in the text. Hopefully one day a physics textbook author will decide to stop treating students like monkeys and publish a great book that educates via giving as much information as possible, not rationing it. This is surely an antiquated practice whose time should end now.

For a fuller understanding of some of the concepts, I also recommend buying a calculus-based text to supplement this one. "Fundamentals of Physics" (same publisher -- Wiley) is a good (and popular) book. I like the 5th edition more than the 6th (it seems less cluttered), although the Student Solutions Manual for the 5th is out of print. If your calculus is rusty, there's hardly any in the first half of the book, and what is there is not complicated -- standard derivatives and integrals. It's a good book to have for gaining a very solid understanding of the concepts, although of a level above what's needed for the MCATs.

Finally, the best review book for MCAT physics is called just that: NOVAs "MCAT Physics". Schaum's outline for pre-Med physics is so lousy, it's amazing. What's even more amazing is how uneven the quality of education materials is. You really have to look around, unfortunately.

This is an excellent book for a high school level physics course or a less than rigorous Physics I course at the college level. It contains no math beyond algebra/trig. For a more rigorous treatment, the book to get is the Serway/Beichner text.

I may just be an armchair philosopher, but I don't think this book's challenge is nearly as radical as it's rhetoric would suggest. Surely, the authors are part of a wonderful project, and one with very important consequences; it seems they know this and with this book aim to convince a wider audience of this fact. It's a noble endeavor; the inclusion of the findings of cognitive science are impressive enough to warrant a reading by anyone who wants to broaden their base of informed philosophical opinion. Nevertheless, the authors' attempts to make this text more accessible tends to oversimplify their critique of philosophy and effectively weakens their overall argument. Many crucial movements - post-structuralism, for example - are merely paid lip service here, and the more comprehensive commentaries seem to be conveniently selected. It's not difficult to finish this book with the impression that these authors are better linguists than they are philosophers.

For over two millenia, nearly all worldly knowledge was regarded as falling under the general heading of philosophy. Physics, psychology, politics, and even economics were all regarded as various branches of study growing out of a single, philosophical trunk. Aristotle, the most systematic of the ancient philosophers, even dabbled in biology. But as human knowledge advanced, these various branches of study broke off from the philosophic stem and established themselves as independent sciences in their own right. Philosophy soon found itself reduced to metaphysics, morals, aesthetics, and epistemology. But now even epistemology is trying to break away. "Philosophy in the Flesh" documents the attempt of "cognitive science" to make epistemology an empirical science separate from philosophy. Its authors, Lakoff and Johnson, seek to challenge the largely introspective and "a priori" speculations of philosophical epistemology, which they regard as discreditable.

"Philosophy in the Flesh" commences by laying down three major findings of cognitive science: (1) that the mind is inherently embodied; (2) that thought is mostly unconscious; and (3) that abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. Assuming that these three findings are true (and, according to Lakoff & Johnson, they are empirically validated beyond any question), then it follows that many of the central tenets of the major philosophic traditions must be dismissed as hopelessly inadequate. "Once we understand the importance of the cognitive unconscious, the embodiment of mind, and metaphorical thought," our intrepid authors advice us, "we can never go back to a priori philosophizing about mind and language or to philosophical ideas of what a person is that are inconsistent with what we are learning about the mind."

All this is very important. If true, it constitutes one of the great revolutions in philosophy and science. But are Lakoff & Johnson the men to carry it out? No, I do not think so. They may be competent scholars and solid citizens within the academic fold, but their philosophical interpretation of the empirical data of cognitive science definitely leaves something to be desired. While I whole-heartedly agree with their contention that philosophy needs to become more empirically responsible, empiricism, though vital and necessary, is not enough. The empirical facts must by synthesized into a grand interpretive vision, and this can only be done by a philosopher of genius. And indeed, in some respects, it already has been done. Most of the valid points in Lakoff's & Johnson's book have been made by philosophers working within the critical realist tradition, especially the philosopher George Santayana. Lakoff and Johnson operate under the illusion that the findings of cognitive science are radically new, but they are not: they simply are new to those whose philosophical knowledge doesn't extend beyond the major traditions taught within academia. Yet well before second generation cognitive science, Santayana had been arguing that the mind has a natural locus within the body, that it contains a large "vegatative" (i.e., unconscious) component, and that concepts (and, indeed, all knowledge) are essentially metaphorical. Cognitive science, in discovering and validating these great truths, merely affirms what Santayana contended throughout his long philosophic career. If we could but merge the findings of cognitive science on the one hand with Santayana's philosophic vision of man and his spirit, we might at last have the honest, empirically responsible philosophy which Lakoff & Johnson are so eager to provide for us and which, thanks to analytic and rationalist philosophy, we have so desparately lacked.

Lakoff and Johnson's book "Philosophy in the Flesh" adds the voice of cognitive linguistics to the growing chorus of voices from science of mind that have informed philosophers: the Platonic World View is nearing the end of its reign over Western philosophy. The human mind is a product of its physical embodiment in the flesh, not some non-physical mystery.

In addition to its main story line, "Philosophy in the Flesh" also has a meta-story line. Lakoff and Johnson were well aware of the fact that many philosophers who remain bewitched by the West's Platonic legacy do not want to listen to what the science of mind has discovered. As Lakoff and Johnson clearly explain the situation, Platonic Idealism, Cartesian Dualism, and Anglo-American analytic philosophy are the natural products of a priori philosophical assumptions that are based on certain common sense metaphors such as 'seeing is believing'. Lakoff and Johnson carefully explain how the science of cognitive linguistics has accumulated data that show the limitations of such Folk Psychological views.

Within "Philosophy in the Flesh", Lakoff and Johnson included an anticipatory critique of their critics, explaining why these critics remain trapped in a dead-end philosophical world view. The key point is that many philosophers are still trained in the belief that science can have nothing useful to say about the mind. This attitude towards science is a fundamental part of the philosophical tradition that is invalidated by modern science of mind. Thus, we are dealing with the latest installment in the rather intriguing situation of an entire intellectual nation being declared intellectually bankrupt by another intellectual tribe. A perfect setting for a protracted battle! In addition, Lakoff and Johnson explicitly explain what is wrong with postmodernism and why it is at odds with their views. Amazingly, this has not stopped some from calling Lakoff's and Johnson's approach postmodern. There is exceptional irony in this kind of desperate attack on the ideas expressed in "Philosophy in the Flesh".

The meta-story line within "Philosophy in the Flesh" serves a useful role for potential buyers of the book. Many critics of "Philosophy in the Flesh" are adherents to the Platonic World View and they have voiced exactly the complaints about "Philosophy in the Flesh" that Lakoff and Johnson explicitly anticipated and accounted for with their meta-story line. What can we conclude when these critics of "Philosophy in the Flesh" fail to mention the meta-story line and how it anticipated their complaints? Most likely, such critics of this book did not read it. If they had, they would have seen the meta-story line and addressed IT in their reviews of the book.

If you are a member of the anti-science tribe of philosophers of mind and language, you will have been trained to ignore the arguments and scientific data that are presented by Lakoff and Johnson. If you are already devoted to an investigation of mind and language by making use of scientific studies of brains and human behavior, then you will enjoy this book as it explores the philosophical implications of physically embodied minds. If you are still thinking about mind and language with an open mind, this book will be useful to you. It presents a strong argument for a new way of doing philosophy that is rooted in the science of mind.

Here are some challenges to the philosophers who are upset by "Philosophy in the Flesh". Take the time to actually read the book. Come back and tell us what you think of how Lakoff and Johnson explained why you are upset. There is a close parallel to how the current philosophical debate over mind is playing out and how the debate over Vitalism played out in the last century. Many philosophers of mind argue that the mind is a special case in philosophy because of the mystery of subjective experience. In "Philosophy in the Flesh" Lakoff and Johnson explain why the old dualistic distinction between objective and subjective is bogus. The response of critics to this specific issue would be a good place to begin a dialog about the actual content of the book.

Media tie-ins are the redheaded stepchildren of the fiction section. Often written in extreme haste by work-for-hire authors with no interest in the project other than the paycheck it provides. While not the poorest example of a media tie-in, Greg Cox's DAREDEVIL, a novelization of the 2003 movie hit starring Ben Affleck, exhibits all the hallmarks of a hurried adaptation of a less-than-stellar screenplay.

Authoring DAREDEVIL was surely a thankless task. The story upon which the book is based attempts to serve as an origin tale for the eponymous hero while shoehorning in a romance plotline that didn't appear until years later in Daredevil's comics continuity. Based on the writing in DAREDEVIL, Greg Cox has some skill as an author, but he falls into traps that often snare tie-in writers; unable to figure out a way to beef up the narrative presented in the screenplay, he leans on internal monologue and overly-florid prose to fill pages. Perhaps Cox did not have the time to invent original material to fill in the gaping holes in DAREDEVIL's story - media tie-ins are notorious among authors for their punishing deadlines - and if so he cannot be held totally at fault for the book's weakness, but when far better examples of the tie-in form can be found on the shelves, Cox's work simply pales by comparison. Chris Claremont's X-MEN 2, released just two months after DAREDEVIL, makes much more of a very slender screenplay.

Great fans of the film upon which DAREDEVIL is based might enjoy this novelization, but those who haven't seen the movie, or who may have picked up DAREDEVIL in an attempt to get pleasure from the book on its own merits, won't find anything about which to get excited. Instead of papering over the shortcomings of Mark Stephen Johnson's screenplay, Cox's adaptation puts a spotlight on them. Readers aren't dazzled by incredible stunt work or special effects, and they don't have a hard-driving techno-metal soundtrack to keep their pulses racing. All the readers have are words and their imaginations, and when the framework upon which the story is placed is so rickety, the characterizations so paper-thin, the author must work doubly hard to make up the shortfall. It's clear from the pages of DAREDEVIL that Cox didn't make this effort.

This is all the more disappointing due to the fact that Daredevil is a fascinating character about whom better stories have been told with even less space than in a 250-page novel. Brian Michael Bendis, in his "Underboss" and "Out" storylines in the ongoing Daredevil comic, brings real depth to the Man Without Fear, and Greg Rucka's take on the Daredevil/Elektra romance, entitled ULTIMATE DAREDEVIL/ELEKTRA, rings far more true than in Cox's DAREDEVIL.

Of course, it's difficult to blame Cox. After all, it's impossible to tell under what circumstances the novelization was written, and the DAREDEVIL screenplay is clearly a poor effort. But sympathy for the author doesn't mean anyone must feel obligated waste time with his work.

All I have to say, is thank the lord that Mark Steven Johnson can film much better than he can write. The writer of this novel was also the writer/director of the feature film which this is based.

I am a comic collector. Plain and simple. And it gives me joy when I see a comic make it to the big screen. And when one does, I buy three things: The official movie poster, the novelization, and the movie on DVD when it is available. And this is one of the few times I've wanted to take that novelization back.

The movie was great. Almost fantastic. I would defenitely have to say that the portrayal in the movie, the overall tone, made Daredevil one of the best movies of the year. But this book was horrible. It lacked detail, and proper description to create imagery, to create the movie in the readers mind. And that made the book horrible. Now, not everyone has the ability to describe something like Tolkien, but the settings were poorly described. Basically the extent of description in this book goes "the dark street. The tall man." Johnson's depiction of the film in writing is horrible, and definitely not worth the money.

Reviews are hard to write, so I'll make it short, sweet, and to-the-point.

Daredevil is a good book for what it is: A screenplay-based novel. I wouldn't put it at the top of my list for books, but I wouldn't put it at the bottom either.

This novel has more than the screenplay written. Daredevil has a sub-story which leads to the end of The Kingpin's assisstant.

For anyone that doesn't want to see the movie, but is interested in what the story of the movie is, I reccommend it. If you have seen the movie and interested in how the author makes it into his own, I reccommend it. But, for anyone who is thinking about picking it up for a good read, I beyond all, DO NOT reccommend it.

There were four stories in this book: Daredevil: The Movie, Ulimate Daredevil and Elektra #1, Daredevil #32, and Spider-man's Tangled Web #4. I really enjoyed the section story, and I thought the last one was pretty interesting, although a bit depressing.

The first story, the comic adaption of the movie, was basically a very abridged version of the movie. Many of the scenes in the movie were cut out, which was understandable, considering the amount of space that was devoted to this part of the book. This comic was only two, maybe three times longer than the other three comics. Considering the title of the book, I expected the entire thing to be just a comic version of the movie - I wasn't expecting the other three stories. Because of how cut-down the movie story is, some parts of the plot are pathetically developed. The relationship between Matt and Elektra, for instance, seems to come up out of nowhere. Sometimes it's hard to understand what's going on, and I'm just grateful I saw the movie before reading this.

The second story focuses mainly on Elektra. There's a lot about some of her deepest friendships during a year at college, as well as how she first got to know and start dating Matt. Her relationship with Matt was really sweet, and I liked reading about her interactions with her friends. The main point of conflict in this story is the fact that Elektra and one of her friends keeps embarassing soem guy, who gets pushed more and more to retaliate. The only thing I didn't like was that this story ended with "Continued in Ultimate Daredevil Trade Paperback". I really wanted to read more.

The second story is about some police investigations into various criminals, including the Kingpin and his son. Daredevil and his secret identity are brought into the conversation. Mostly, I found this story to be confusing and boring. Mostly boring, since I eventually got over my confusion. Since I don't regularly read Daredevil comics, I had a somewhat difficult time following some of the cops' discussions about characters I didn't know. It didn't really feel like very much happened.

The last story follows the last hours of one of the Kingpin's men, when he realizes that his botched work will lead to his execution at his boss's hands. I thought this one was very well done, and it, along with the second story are the best parts of this book.

Overall, the artwork was very nice, but I think this book could have been much better if the people who put it together had focused on one thing or another, rather than jumping from comic to comic. In fact, because of the title, I think they should have just done a book-length comic adaptation of the movie. The adaptation that they actually did not do anything justice.

I know little about DareDevil but this was a pretty good book. It was action packed but most of the time action sometimes doesn't sound good on paper. What I didn't care for was the use of gd.

I can see that the author knows his stuff but he really has little idea how to write or to communicate information in such a way that the reader can follow it. He is addicted to saying 'First', 'Second' and 'Finally', without appearing to have any appreciation of the fact that readers will then expect to see information appearing in that order. Two examples:

In Chapter one, under the heading An Outline of this book, he talks about the 'next chapter'. One might reasonably assume a brief overview of each chapter, but this is not forthcoming. From 'the next chapter', he skips to Chapter 9 and leaves it at that.

In Chapter 6, he details three approaches, the final one of which is 'a number of neural correlates'. Turn the page and what do we see? Not a detailed examination of these approaches in the right order, but another set of approaches apparently specific to neural correlates, the last approach of the previous page. At no point does he continue with the stages detailed in his overview.

I'm afraid the whole thing is just too muddled, and I'm surprised the editor did not point this out to him.

This is the first introductory textbook on the emerging field of developmental cognitive neuroscience, and one that sets high standards. Professor Johnson provides a clear and comprehensive overview of the essential mechanisms of the development of brain, behavior and cognition. Developmental cognitive neuroscience is a relatively new field of research, and Johnson has been one of its pioneers. The book deals not only with research on human infant development, but also deals with early learning and development in animals. This book is required reading for advanced undergraduates and postgraduates, and it is an excellent guide for researchers and teachers in this field. I will certainly want to use it for courses in developmental cognitive neuroscience.