This review is for a book by Strathern published in Canada under the title
"Dr. Strangelove's Game: A Brief History of Economic Genius".

I found this book a major disappointment. It seems to me that the author is
clearly outside his field of expertise, the result being a book riddled
with errors. For instance, in his exposition of Ricardo's theory of
comparative advantage, the example has no comparative advantage. If he had
bothered to read a chapter of an introductory international economics book,
he would have found a clear illustration, Similarly, his description of
Edgeworth's contract curve is muddled and wrong with one consumer gaining
utility at the expense of the other. Indeed, it seems that the author spent
so little time writing the book that he does not even get his arithmetic
right -- his own numbers indicating the American domestic market was 167
percent larger than the British in 1910, not 250 percent larger as claimed.

To his merit, he does say something about nearly every major figure in
economics up to Friedman -- I would probably have included Samuelson as
well -- and other figures as well, e.g., Luca Pacioli, the father of
accounting. And his prose is quite readable, although I found his tendency
towards hyperbole annoying.

On the whole, if you are interested in biographical sketches of leading
economic thinkers in history and are not concerned about an explanation of
their ideas, you may find this book interesting. But I would look
elsewhere.

I bought this book hoping it might shed some insights into the thoughts and times of the world's greatest economists and I got what I hoped for. In particular I was hoping to see if the author did a good job in relating economics to other areas such as politics, science, sociology, history philosophy and mathematics and the book fulfilled my desire. The book was well written, in terms of prose, making it an easy book to read economics books, especially for non-economists.

If I had anything to gripe it would be the EXTREMELY poor editing. Throughout the book I found words that had mistakenly been split up by a spac e mark, such as what I have included in this review. One or two can be forgiven but the twenty or so I seem to have come across is truly shameful for a book at approximately $20 or more. As a result of this and the poor examples provided I rate the book a 3 star book

This book, like The Worldly Philosophers and New Ideas from Dead Economists, is designed to illustrate the thoughts and history of the world's greatest economic thinkers. Economists. This book is ideal for those seeking to learn about some of the contributions of the world's greatest economists as well as those who are history buffs and want to learn more about the times / overlap of the world's greatest minds in other areas such as philosophy, science, etc as many of these individuals had an impact on economists of their times.

Economists highlighted in the book, which goes in chronological order from past to recent, include Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Robert Malthus, George Marshall, Thorton Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter, John von Neumann, John Nash and Milton Friedman.

Some historic events mentioned in the book, since they affected the economists' thoughts, are Holland's 17th-century bout of tulipmania, Britain's notorious South Sea Bubble, The French Revolution, the Great Depression, and the rebuilding and retribution strategies following the two world wars.

Most of my reviews are in business / economics and I encourage people to read them. If you are interested in another excellent economics book I would start with The Worldly Philosophers (which I would buy before this book) and then read Hernando DeSoto's Mystery of Capital. A great general business book is by the management guru Peter Drucker entitled "The Essential Drucker". Just so you know, he didn't pick the title but his work is excellent and highly applicable for managers.

One final note, The Mystery Of Capital is a highly regarded, easy to read book on economic development that is VERY popular in the offices of dignitaries throughout the world, including Paul O'Neill (Secretary of State for the U.S). During a recent CNBC documentary on Mr. O'Neill the secretary met Mr. DeSoto to get some insights before his trip to Africa where he will focus on ways to improve economic development in 3rd world nations.

A Brief History Of Economic Genius by Paul Strathern (Lecturer in Mathematics and Philosophy, Kingston University, London) is an engaging and highly accessible look at the most eccentric and gifted economists including Johann Becher (1635-1682); John Law (1671-1729); Adam Smith (1723-1790); Robert Malthus (1766-1833); Karl Marx (1818-1883); Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929); and John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). These notable and influential figures, along with their triumphs and failings, and the evolution of the science of economics, are all intelligibly considered in this fascinating presentation that is recommended for academia, as well as the non-specialist general reader.

The timelines and bibliography are good. Otherwise, I would say this book reminds me of an offhand attempt to dispose of a topic the author has little interest in or sympathy for. Just to make the series complete. Shallow. If you want to read a much better Kierkegaard intro, try Donald D. Palmer's Kierkegaard for Beginners. It takes a little longer than 90 minutes, but it's written with gusto.

This book should have CAUTION written on it, as it is dangerous. Let me give you a few examples:

1) On page 7 it says, "Kierkegaard wasn't really a philosopher at all. At least not in the academic sense." If we say that academic philosophy does not recognize Kierkegaard as a philosopher we must also recognize that Kierkegaard thinks academic philosophy is a nest of charlatans and liars who have no right to judge his work. For Kierkegaard, Socrates is the paradigmatic philosopher. Imagine, for a moment, Plato's dialogue Protagoras. There is Socrates, who receives no money for teaching because he has nothing to teach. There are, on the other hand, the sophists, who claim to be able to teach the Sciences, real knowledge, in return for pay. Who does the academic philosopher resemble: Socrates or the sophist? Who does Kierkegaard more resemble? If Kierkegaard is not a philosopher, how is Socrates one? Certainly, Kierkegaard never claimed to be a philosopher (despite his Doctorate in Philosophy), calling himself a poet, but it must always be remembered that this is because he holds academic philosophers in contempt.

2) On page 8 is the claim that Kierkegaard invented existentialism, a claim about as absurd as Socrates invented philosophy or Jesus, Christianity. Sartre invented existentialism and then enlisted "precursors" to support the claim that he hadn't. Existentialism is one interpretation of Kierkegaard's work and is probably not the best one. Now that Post-Modernism is all the rage, Kierkegaard is being seen as Post-Modern (see Both-And by Michael Strawser). The problem is that what you bring to Kierkegaard is what you get out of him and if you are looking for existentialism in Kierkegaard, you will find it, whether its there or not.

3) In the chapter on "Life and Works" one of the most pervasive and difficult to dispell error about Kierkegaard is presented as fact. The author describes the pseudonymous authorship as Kierkegaard's attempt to disguise himself. This is true enough. The problem is that a pseudonym did nothing, in a small town like Copenhagen, to disguise his identity. Everybody in town knew who the author of Either/Or was. So clearly to say as the author did, "Once again Kierkegaard found himself in a pickle. . . .Put simply he wanted to hide behind a pseudonym, yet at the same time he wished to make it obvious it was a pseudonym"(p. 35) is disingenuous. Hello, I think everybody is going to figure out that A and B are not real names. I don't think he needs to signal people that these are pseudonyms. So what has Kierkegaard got to hide. Himself. He is trying to get free of his own history. He creates, not just pseudonyms, but characters which themselves embody philosophical ideas. By coming to understand the expressions, concerns and moods of these characters, a careful reader comes to understand a philosophical idea (for instance, in either /Or A embodies the aesthetic existence sphere and B the ethical sphere). There is a danger therefore in talking too much about Regine Olsen or Michael P. Kierkegaard as the source or meaning of Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works. Then one has a source for pat answers about Kierkegaard's meaning with no real interpretive depth. As long as one continues talking about Kierkegaard upbringing or his engagement one risks a surface interpretation displacing any hope of a deeper understanding.

I suggest Douglas Mullen's book Self-deception and cowardice in the Present Age, or Parables of Kierkegaard by Thomas Oden as alternatives.

Strathern is a master at this kind of work, which mixes biography, critical analysis, historical context and humor all in a concise, informative & entertaining package. He lists a time line for the philosopher, his place in world/philosophic history & a selection of works for furthur reading. This series of books by Strathern is a wonderful course in Philosophy 101 without ever having to go to college, all presented in plain, easy to understand English without being bogged down with philosophy's often confusing vernacular. If you are expecting an in-depth review or complete analysis of the philosopher's life & work, read another book. This is meant to be a quick, concise overview & that's just what it provides. There's suggested readings listed in the back for people who want to investigate Kierkegaard's life & works more thoroughly.

Strathern's summary of the life of Issac Newton is less than 90 pages of unusually large print -- a very quick read indeed. At best, it is a superficial glance that provides little insight into the life or work of Newton.

In many ways, the book is a contradiction. Strathern's approach is more suited to a children's book, but his writing style is intended for an educated adult. For me, the result was fast-paced boredom.

This book told me several significant points about Issac that I (and most other people) are not aware of. It also inspired me to learn more. It requires a small amount of time to read. For me that is an advantage.

This is a great book for people that avoid fat books which are padded with trivial details that can't be remembered anyway.

Paul Strathern is known for concise "in a nutshell" publications, such as his excellent "The Philosophers in 90 Minutes" series of books. However, "The Big Idea" doesn't live up to that legacy, and anybody with a few moments and an internet connection can find all sorts of web pages that are more elucidating than his "Big Idea" books.

While his books provide a historical viewpoint that presents pertinent background information about each subject, one is certainly better off with books such as The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene which does everything Strathern tries to do but with much more substance (and all in just the first few chapters).

Strathern's "Big Idea" books, with their large 14-pt print are elementary\middle-school level reading; and while they would probably make great educational gifts, they don't have much value outside that age group.

Final verdict: If you're interested in physics and relativity, there read "Relativity Visualized" by Epstein or "The Elegant Universe" by Green; or better yet, spend some time browsing the net and you'll be surprised at what you can find.

Immanuel Kant has a well deserved reputation as one of the most difficult philosophers to read and to study. His writing style is, to be generous, rather convoluted. One could only imagine Kant's laundry lists: they must be pages and pages in length.

So it comes as no surprise that a Get-Kant-Quick book would be desired by many intelligent readers who do not have the time to translate the English translation of Kant's writings into English. And there are such books out there that will enable one to do just that. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.

Don't be taken in by the inexpensive price - all you really get for your shekels is a cursory summary of Kant's life and thought, with more emphasis on the biography than the thought. A dialogue on Kant's metaphysics follows. Add to that short passages from Kant's writings, and timeline chronologies of Kant's life and the history of philosophy. All this for about $6.00.

For a few dollars more, you can buy Karl Jaspers's excellent short book on Kant taken from his "Great Philosophers" books. The difference between Paul Strathern and Karl Jaspers is that between a backyard barbeque cook and the Iron Chef.

To illustrate my point in this regard, consider Strathern's discussion of Kant's Categorical Imperative. While he takes the first part into account, "Act as if what you do should be a universal law," he forgets the second part, "Treat others as ends and not as means." Strathern gives us an example of Kant being asked by the Nazis as to the whereabout of a Jewish friend. Strathern noted that, according to Kant's own dictum, to tell a lie even to a murderer is wrong. But he then notes that perhaps "his highly active mind would quickly discovered a duty which forbade him to hand over his friend. If Strathern had taken the time to digest the complete Categorical Imperative, he would have the answer. (A Kantian would replay that, although he knows where his friend is, he could not turn the friend over, for the person is an end and not a means to an end.)

Jaspers knew this, and so does Scruton: the difference between spending you money and getting your money's worth.

Well, Strathern is certainly entertaining, if not informative. He gives us the dirt on each philosopher, tells us who was overweight, ... pushed people around, etc. This would be great if we were reading about movie stars or politicians but I bought these books in order to understand something about what these philosophers thought. He does reserve a few pages at the end of each volume to tells us one or two of their ideas and gives us a handful of quotes. A total waste of money unless you hate your philosophy classes so much that you want to hear how awful the personal lives of the philosophers were. A new low in publishing.

So, what are you doing for the next 90 minutes !?

Well, if you were Kant and it was 3pm you would be out for a walk. But, you are not Kant!

So, why not read this crisp, piety-clearing, psych-insightful, entertaining portrait? Rarely will you find such an academically freeing and stimulating 90 minutes. (Especially assuming that you may have been numbed by Kant in the past.)

And, cheaper than most of the multiplexes!

I found this book to be essentially useless. It presented a brief, boring biography of Locke with little attention to his world altering theories. Waste of time.

I think Paul Strathern is brilliant. He must have looked at the way the "...for Dummies" series has a standard format and done something similar. I was more impressed with his treatment of Confucius. In both this book on Locke and the one on Confucius he gives us 50 pp. of content in two sections: "Subject's Life and Works" and "Afterword". But in the book on Locke, Strathern spent too many words poking fun at Locke and calling him boring. He also spent much more effort in describing the life and times of Locke than his philosophy. I think Strathern must find Locke too boring to spend much time discussing his contributions. "From Socrates to Sarte: the Philosophic Quest" by T.Z.Lavine gives four chapters to Hume and a handful of pages to Locke. "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant doesn't give a full chapter to either Hume or Locke, merely including them within the context of philosophers whom Durant considers greater. So at least Strathern has given more individual focus to Locke than other writers popularizing philosophy. Strathern also, as part of his format in this 90 Minutes series, gives representative quotes from Locke's work. This is a very nice touch and I recommend the book for this reason. You can see that reading Locke is like reading the King James version of the Bible: "Huh? What did he say?" This is a decent book, but I did feel a bit let down while reading it, which is why I give it 3 instead of 4 stars. Also, the other reviewer made comments saying that Locke's philosophy of government depends on the inate goodness of people. That is only that reviewer's opinion. That did not come across at all in this presentation of Locke's work.

This book sets as its goal to communicate the life and work of John Locke in 90 minutes. For me, the book succeeded in this; I read it in about an hour and then went back over some parts to review in more depth.

John Locke (1632-1704) was an important philosopher; he laid the groundwork for liberal democracy and he was also the founder of empiricism. Strathern spends most of the book describing different events in Locke's life and for non-specialist, this is probably a good approach. Strathern does a fairly good job of putting Locke in his historical context; grew up during the English Civil War, and then lived through Oliver Cromwell's rule and then the Restoration of the Monarchy; one of the more turbulent periods in English history, no doubt. I think Paul Strathern is a British writer and this comes through in his writing.

Strathern is fond is saying that Locke's philosophy was "common sense." However, empiricism (The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge) is not really self-evident and wholly obvious. Locke also presumed that when one is born, one is a tabula rasa (The mind before it receives the impressions gained from experience. The unformed, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke.) or a blank slate. I think that everybody has some innate ideas (things that you just know apart from experience). On occasion, it appears that Locke is a materialist (materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena) but this is incompatible with his philosophy. Surely, empiricism is a non-physical thing; how much does empiricism weigh? What is its volume? It is non-physical. As a philosophy of epistemology (The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity), I think empiricism is seriously flawed.

Locke's political thought probably had more impact on the world than his epistemology. Locke believed there is a natural law that gives people certain rights; for example the right to life or the right to liberty. However, because people keep stepping on other people's rights, it is necessary to form some sort of social contract (i.e like the American Constitution). Locke also held that certain rights are inherent and that if a government should act to violate those rights, then the people are justified in starting a revolution against those in power. Locke believed that Government had no legitimacy except the consent of the people (near the end of the 1700's, this would result in a paradigm shift from the Divine Right of Kings, to a Government by the People).

One the most interesting passages (I don't agree with his evaluation of Kant thought) describes several centuries of European philosophy: "Without Descartes there might have been no modern philosophy. But it was Locke who fathered the main line of development - the British Empiricists, who then provoked Kant to produce the greatest philosophical system of all, which in turn gave rise to the elephantine folly of Hegel, and the consequent disbelief in all systems by anyone except Marxists and optimistic punters." (page 49)

One of the interesting legacies of Locke may be his contribution to scientism (The belief that only science provides true knowledge or only that which can be proved by science is true). He makes a distinction between primary qualities of an object, which are quantifiable (e.g. mass or volume) and he said these are in the objects. Then there are secondary qualities, and these are qualitative (e.g. colour or smell) do not have the same connection to the object. In some sense, secondary qualities are mental constructs, in Locke's view. It is easy to see how a belief that quantitative properties are the only real things that can be known (i.e. if science can't measure it, it doesn't exist.) has major repercussions. The other problem I have with Locke relates to his understanding of language and how that language can describe objects. Strathern says, "Locke had rejected the Aristotelian notion whereby the words with which we classify things correspond to the 'real essence' of things." (page 47) The impact of this is that if two people see an object they cannot discover a common essence but both can come up with ideas that are mental constructs. I think this may have contributed to the moral relativism that is now so so pervasive in North America.

On the format of the book, about 60% covers Locke's life and works; that is 48 pages. Then there is a short Afterword, followed by a 10 page section which quotes from Locke's two major works, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," (on epistemology) and, "Two Treatises of Government," (on political philosophy; attacks the Divine Right of Kings and argues for liberal democracy). Then there are two chronologies; one of the history of Western philosophy (it is interesting to note who comes before and after Locke) and then there is a chronology of Locke's life.

There are several problems with Locke's thought, however I will look at two here. In describing the point at which everyone has his or her rights and all is well, I think this shows a view that humanity is basically good. However, if you examine the history of the world, yourself or the Bible, you find that this is simply not the case. It is dangerous to build a government with the assumption that people are basically good. On his political philosophy, I don't know if it is wise to wholly place the legitimacy of government in the consent of the people. There must be a higher authority beyond man, immutable and good, on which government can be measured against (e.g. in South Africa, apartheid was legal and authorized by the government however only by appeal to a transcendent law that demands equality could this be overthrown)

Well, Strathern is certainly entertaining, if not informative. He gives us the dirt on each philosopher, tells us who was overweight, cheap, pushed people around, etc. This would be great if we were reading about movie stars or politicians but I bought these books in order to understand something about what these philosophers thought. He does reserve a few pages at the end of each volume to tells us one or two of their ideas and gives us a handful of quotes. A total waste of money unless you hate your philosophy classes so much that you want to hear how awful the personal lives of the philosophers were. A new low in publishing.

The sole purpose of the "90 minute" book seris is to give the reader a firm understanding of the subject at hand. Hume was a philospher so I was expecting "Hume in 90 minutes" to deal soley with Hume's philopshy. This was not always the case. The book reads more as a history lesson of Hume's life and the world around him, namly Britian in the eighteenth-century. I found the most informarive part of the book (where Hume's philosphy is discussed) is the last section where there contains excerpts of what Hume wrote about concerning different subjects and topics. Strathern does a good job in showing the reader WHO Hume has influenced and HOW they have been influenced by him. The way Strathern shows the effects that Hume has had on modern scienece is also very successful. Overall, "Hume in 90 minutes" is a good way of learning about Hume's life but it lacks the philosopical insight that I was hoping to find before I read the book. The book is an enjoyable read and I recommend the "90 minute" seris to anyway that wants to learn more about the lives and times of differnt philosophers.

This book merits no review. It is insulting to mislead anyone to think he/she can understand Jean Paul Sartre in ninety minutes. Most people do not have the intelligence to understand his ideas; those who do spend years thinking. It isn't pablum, and there is no clue if you don't have a brain. There are those who get it and those who don't. A book which claims to have the key should have been written on disposable paper.

I picked up this book hoping that it would help me sort through some of Sartre's basic ideas....which I found quite challenging. The book was very disappointing in this respect. It was full of generalizations and opinions and failed to give me, a newbie to sartre, any valuable help. I would spend your money on "SARTRE FOR BEGINNERS" which I found much more helpful and useful.

In contrast to the other reviewers here, I found this to be quite good. Granted, it is extremely basic but that is it's stated purpose. It doesn't claim to be a comprehensive analysis of Sartre's ideas, merely a biographical jumping-off point for those with no prior exposure to the man.

These "IN 90 MINUTES" books are wonderful introductions to the greatest minds of the Western world. I take sincere issue with those (see review below) who would attempt to cloak the study of philosophy behind a smokescreen of intellectual elitism. Such snobbery is contradictory to the goals of all philosophical thought.

Philosophy is for EVERYONE!

Sartre is difficult, yes, but not beyond the intelligence of anyone truly interested and dedicated to understanding.

I recommend this book without reservation.

... in order to stand and be counted but I must say that the other reviewers pretty much said it all. There is little analysis of the thought of Aquinas in this book. What's worse is that the book isn't a well reasoned critique on Aquinas' thought but rather a short burst of ranting and ravings, often resorting to cheap personal attacks.
I'm sure we're all just a little bit dumber after reading this book.

I agree with all the previous reviews. I had just finished G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Chesterton is a marvelous writer, but being a devout Catholic, he assumed the reader would know Aquinas' philosophy. I picked up this book to learn more. I didn't. Strathern constantly sacrificed his point for the sake of cruel witticisms. Other than a bit of history about Aquinas' life, I came away with the impression that Strathern: (a) considers Catholics beneath contempt: (b) believes the people of Medieval times have nothing to say to us (c) is so embittered toward Christianity that he can scarcely bear to credit it with any good. More than anything, this book irritated me because it never gives the basic points of Aquinas' philosophy. Even when granting Aquinas' intellect reluctant praise, Strathern doesn't elaborate on why Thomas was brilliant. I agree with the other reviewer who wondered if Strathern had even read Thomas Aquinas. If all the books in the series are this bad, I won't waste my time.

I disagree with the previous five raters for this item.

First of all, look at the goal of the book. It is meant to be a brief introduction, not a comprehensive survey. No one will be an Aquinas scholar after reading the book, but no one should expect to. It's a reasonable introduction to his life and times and I learned a few things from it. It's a good perspective.

Second of all, the author may not have much good to say about Catholicism, but very few authors and academicians these days have much good to say about any Western religion.

Third, his writing style is a bit snide at times, but the alternative is a dry style that few people will read.

My major criticism is that the book is a bit short on his actual philosophy and a bit too long on the times he lived in. I do think his Timeline on Philosophy and the life of Aquinas was very useful, and his brief description of the philosopher's last days was downright charming.

Perhaps a better brief source on Aquinas would be the section in Will and Ariel Durant's series on the Story of Civilization.

By way of background, I have an M.A. in Philosophy and a doctorate in antother field.

Lots can be said about the genial and conversational style of Foucault in 90 minutes. Strathern does not pull any punches to vigorously outline his personal strong belief in his sweep of the philosopher's life and work. He does not disappoint with Foucault in 90 minutes. I would like to caution the reader about the reading and use of this (and I am not even sure it qualifies as a "book" - it is more like an essay actually) book. Readers unquestionably should not use these extremely short, and often opinionated volumes as a replacement for reading Foucault's books. On occasion, Strathern judges Foucault guilty of a number of intellectual oversimplifications, and clearly dislikes, not Foucault's homosexuality, but of some of the Foucault's life choices. I strongly feel that if you are going to provide a "reader" or "introduction" of sorts, a writer needs to be neutral and as objective as he/she can possibly be - Strathern in neither. As a point of style, the first section of the volume covers Foucault's life and work. At the end of the essay, Strathern, lists quotations from the Foucault's work and tries a chronology of his life and of the history of philosophy. In concluding, I would like to reiterate the point I made above, Strathern's Foucault in 90 minutes would have been as a good introduction to demystify Foucault, to establish a form of working context which makes the life and work of Foucault less ominous. Unfortunately, Strathern is neither. Best to try Macey, Eribon, Miller or even David Shumway (all available on Amazon.com) for a more scholarly introduction.

Miguel Llora