I gave this book a low score because it is boring, yet I did not give it a lower score because it is very informative and useful.

I wanted a practical, principled guide to leadership. Unfortunately, this title falls short: it is overly academic, with numerous in-line citations and relatively themeless discussion of technical issues. If it discussed "the essence of leadership," I must have missed it. To the professional behavioral scientist, it might be useful, but to a general audience it is nearly worthless.

For a principled, well-written text descripting the personality traits of successful businessmen, I highly recommend Dr. Locke's other book ("The Prime Movers").

This book is exactly what it says on the tin - a point by point response to Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Consequentially it's pretty pointless to try reading this if you haven't already read the Essay. It's interesting from the point of view that it's virtually the only example of one great philosopher making a detailed reply to another's work, and that besides the Theodicy it's Leibniz's only full length book. The problem is that detail however - this is only marginally shorter than Locke's Essay, and the problem of the Essay's repetiveness is exacerbated here, as Leibniz seems to say the same things over and over again. The dialogue form is also disappointing as Leibniz puts in very little effort to make the speakers even remotely realistic (although some claim that the work is, stylistically, unfinished, which accounts for that).

In terms of the edition, it's much like all the others in the Cambridge History of Philosophy Range, which is to say, very nice, with a helpful introduction.

Overall, I'd say this is a book for study, rather than reading for enlightenment. For scholars of Locke and Leibniz only.

I'd like first to see the preview to remember what i have rea

I undertook to read this book because an introduction to Mary Barton, the first novel of Mrs. Glaskell, mentioned this book as the first novel of Charles Kingsley and suggested it was worth reading. I cannot see how anyone could enjoy reading this awful book. The story it tells is really inane, I thought, tho I know one should make allowances for the period in which it was written. But we all know Dickens wrote in the same time period and his works still enthrall readers. I cannot imagine anyone being enthralled by this work. It does not help that Kingsley for entirely gratuituous reasons periodically snarls at what he calls "papists" with obvious bigotry. Towards the end there is a long chapter devoted to telling of a dream Alton Locke had, which I only was able to keep reading because I was determined to finish the book, since I seldom quit reading a book once I have decided, wisely or unwisely, to read it. Unless you are going to write a thesis or something on Kingsley you will be glad you did not decide to read this book.

Speculative indeed. The crux of the book is the assumption that Manet's father fathered Leon and young Manet married Suzanne to protect the family name. But if so, why wait until the father died to marry her? And does it make sense psychologically that Manet would marry and love (as his letters to her indicate) the mother of his father's child? Locke gives no initiative to Suzanne, who is presented as passive, whereas it is most likely that it was Suzanne who insisted on passing off Leon as her brother to protect _her_ reputation. Moreover, Locke doesn't even look at the pictures carefully. She says the dog in "Fishing" (which is on the jacket) is looking at the boy whereas clearly the dog is looking at Suzanne. She also says the sword in "Luncheon in the Studio" is the same as the one in "Boy with Sword" but it's clearly not. There are a few reproductions that one doesn't usually see, but all of the reproductions are in black and white. The book is laxly argued and depends on outmoded Freud and the fancies of Lacan and Foucault.

I had a lot of trouble finding this book, and it wasn't worth it. What it has to say is so-so and it takes years saying it. Locke is a lot more interesting than this unimportant, dried-up book ever lets on.