While this book may have its advantages and plusses, the author was a fervent anti-Catholic, and this edition contains several anti-Catholic bits and pieces. The author's Calvinism and anti-Catholicism shine through. It's a pity. As a Catholic, I do not appreciate having my religion attacked in a textbook that is supposed to be about the history of philosophy. Nor do I think I can look on this book as a reliable philosophical resource, since I cannot be sure whether something the author says truly reflects reality or is tainted by his anti-Catholic or Calvinistic preconceptions. Had the author (and editor!) of this book refrained from attacking the Catholic Church, his work would have been a lot more useful.

I found this book while browsing through the school library and, after remembering an awesome quote which was taken from it, I decided to check it out. Now, having read the book, I would like to recommend it to anyone wanting to study the history of philosophy.

The reason why is two-fold. First of all, the author has a skill rarely equalled in explaining the ideas of the major thinkers on a level the beginning student can understand. Secondly, he shows the errors that each philosopher makes only when it matters--and he does so eloquently.

As proof of the first, consider this quote (the one that I heard once and thankfully remembered) which is excerpted from the section dealing with Heraclitus:

"From a promontory above a mighty river as it flows down a valley, the river between a frame of trees seems to stand still as in a picture. We know that it moves, but we cannot see its motion. Sensation is too feeble and clumsy to see things as they are, and hence common opinion holds that some things do not move. On the contrary, all things flow. No man can ever step twice into the same river. How could he? The second time he tried to step, new waters would have flowed down from upstream: the water would not be the same. Neither would the bed and banks be the same, for the constant erosion would have changed them too. And if the river is the water, the bed, and the banks, the river is not the same river. Strictly speaking, there is no river. When common opinion names a river, it supposes that the name applies to something that will remain there for a time at least; but the river remains there no time at all. It has changed while you pronounce its name. There is no river. Worse yet, you cannot step into the same river twice because _you_ are not there twice. You too change, and the person who stepped the first time no longer exists to step the second time. A person is also a river, a stream of consciousness, as William James called it; and the stream of consciousness never has the same contents, the same bed or banks. Persons do not exist."

Wasn't that grand? I myself have never heard a more forceful (nor a more memorable) argument for the idea of a Heraclitean flux than that. But my second statement beckons for an example of its validity as well. And so, here is the author skillfully pointing out an error in the arguments of the skeptics:

"The skeptics call propositions false, doubtful, probable, and plausible. Their basic principle, however, does not in consistency permit them to use any of these terms. A false proposition is one opposite to the truth. How then can one say that a proposition is false, unless one knows the truth? A doubtful proposition is one that might possibly be true; a probable or plausible proposition resembles or approximates the truth. But it is impossible to apply these terms without knowing the truth by which they are determined."

Now, do you see my point? This truly is a great introduction. It not only "makes the difficult attempt of bringing the student up to philosophy's level," it succeeds. Because of this, it deserves much more than the five stars I'm giving it here.

In this volume, Gordon Haddon Clark (not "Maddon"; that's a typo on Amazon's part) provides a thorough survey of the history of philosophy. His overarching concern is to argue that secular philosophy cannot provide knowledge of truth and that -- as he suggests on his closing page -- it might be necessary to consider seriously the possibility of divine revelation as the sole alternative to total skepticism. This volume, while suitable as an introduction to philosophical thought, thereby also segues nicely into Clark's own philosophical theology of "Scriptural presuppositionalism."

Now, that philosophy is not without its flaws. In the first place, Clark does not, to my knowledge, ever consider the possibility that "Scripture" might consist of anything other than the Christian Bible; why the Jewish scriptures are inadequate by themselves is not addressed. (If it is argued that the "Old Testament" contains clear pointers to the "New," I shall argue in reply that it contains much clearer pointers to the Oral Law and the Talmud. For example, the written text clearly assumes that its readers have knowledge of various practices -- e.g. the wearing of tefillin, the ritually-correct method of slaughtering animals -- that are not discussed in the text itself. For another, an oral tradition of some kind would have been necessary just to guide the pronunciation of Hebrew words that would have been ambiguous without vowel points. Nothing so clear as this is offered by the standard Christian readings of "Old Testament" prophecies, which uniformly depend on wrenching passages out of context.)

In the second place, Clark's eminently defensible view that God is rational and logical would, on the face of it, seem also to provide a foundation for criticizing the text of Scripture itself. (If the Bible teaches that God is logical, and the Bible is then found to contain contradictions, do we not have a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument against Scriptural inerrancy?) In fact Clark takes it to be a foundation for criticism of _misunderstandings_ of God's axiomatically-inerrant Word, and at a broad, general level this approach is surely defensible. But why this tack cannot be likewise taken by defenders of the Torah (or the Koran) is never made sufficiently clear.

However, these issues actually tell in favor of the usefulness of the present volume. Though Clark himself would surely not have condoned its use in the defense of faiths other than Calvinist Christianity, many of his critiques of opposing philosophies and even some of his defenses of "presuppositionalism" could be profitably adopted by, e.g., Jewish theologians. His reading of philosophical history should therefore be of interest more generally than just to Calvinists.

And at any rate, it is all too seldom that a really great philosophical-theological mind tackles the entire history of philosophy in the first place. Clark certainly deserves respectful attention in this regard by rationalistically-inclined religious believers everywhere, whether their primary philosophical-theological loyalties are to Moses Maimonides or to John Calvin.

Like so many other of Dewey's books, this could've been- indeed should've been- longer. It was also a bit more muddled than other Dewey-penned titles I've read. The ideas are many, but if one underlying theme had to be given, it would be the shattering of the nature/nurture dualilsm (as relating to political debate.) I've long since agreed with Dewey here. It is absurd to postulate as to what man's nature is apart from an environment for her to act on. This does not mean that Dewey is denying biological traits- nor is he saying that we are simply products of environment. He breaks through the dualism by suggesting that just as our environments exist the way they do because of our action upon them, we exist the way we do because of how our environemt acts on us. Any line drawing between inside and outside is dangerous and leads to bad theory.

From here, he takes the above theory to a few problems in political debate. Do capitialism and democracy HAVE to be exlusive and is there any good reason they can't function seperately? Does Marxism undermine itself by acknowledging environmental factors to the elimination of human autonomy? If, as Marxism holds, that environment is ALL there is, how can someone be class-conscious- isn't that an autonomous actiion? Dewey's point in asking these questions is to tell us that the answers (if there are any) are not as easy as poltical science might have us believe. For every decision (capitalism, totalitarianism, welfare state etc.) there are trade offs. Here's where Dewey brings in science.
As we know, the pragmatists are ga-ga over science and rightfully so. Science as Dewey knows it is a process, not a concrete method. Science is debate and discovery through experiment and dialogue. While the natural sciences have been quick in their advances, the social sciences barely creep along. Dewey suggests a few reasons. So as not to give away the book (which you should buy after this review!) the one I'll relay is that of commercialism. He who has the money can decide what research to do and why. Dewey is not a Feyerabendian flake who thinks that this makes science a mere myth, but
he does see the problem when only a few hands hold the ability to do science. To his credit, he sees totalitarian states as even more harmful to scientific progrss.
My only problem with the book is that at 133 pages, the readers appetite will be wet by every chapter but she will have to look elsewhere for detailed explanations and more thorough discussion. My reccomendation is to read Dewey's "The Quest For Certainty" before, after or during this book.

FREEDOM AND CULTURE is particularly helpful in understanding the different views of freedom and liberty found within the Anglo-American school of thought as compared to the Continental school of thought. Dewey is always an informative read and he explains things very well, though that doesn't mean he would grab the attention of the uninterested. I greatly enjoyed this book, along with Dewey's other works.

It was a good treatise yet after reading this, I wonder what it was that i just read. The book will be remembered for its isolated ingenius points rather than a book as a whole. I read this for a class.

Derived from a series of lectures Dewey gave in 1927, The Public and Its Problems touches on virtually all the major political philosophy questions of our day. One marvels at its continued relevance into the 21st Century. Dewey, arguably the United States' greatest thinker, does an amazing job in sifting through the problems contemporary society faces when forming a polity.

The point Public and Its Problems brings up on more than one occasion is the need for political and social policy to incorporate the scientific method of testing and retesting to generate better results. Dewey refers to this as an experimental social method and surely felt corporate capitalism had used up its testing time and that a new socio-economic system should be tried. Public and Its Problems talks about how policies and theories need to be constantly in flux and not rigidly adhered. The social sciences would then work to investigate and interpret the results of the testing process.

One portion of the book gives a fascinating look at a puzzling quandary Dewey proffers: that being the contradiction of the French and American revolutions having a philosophy of individualism while being massive collective efforts. This section makes for some complicated reading but it's enthralling nonetheless because it touches on a fundamental political and philosophical question. It's in this chapter of the book where he goes on to pose one of the more audacious and profound points of political thought: the essential fallacy of the democratic creed being that it assumes free human beings can rule themselves. (He obviously does say democracy is a good thing given that it threw off a restrictive cloak.) Dewey goes on to elaborate on the point indicating that what's critically necessary is an improvement to the methods and conditions of debate and discussion. Public and Its Problems goes on to ostensibly say it's the corporate capitalist press that controls policy conduct by controlling public opinion. A most astute observation. Of course this opinion is of a public that hasn't found itself, Dewey asserts. He writes "the modern economic regime control present politics much as dynastic interests controlled those of two centuries ago. They effect thinking and desire." Here he touches on false consciousness and monopolistic control over our culture and institutions and the insidious way they thwart the public from finding itself and rallying for its concerns.

Most importantly, Public and Its Problems contends that the majority populace can indeed make wise decisions regarding our present day technocratic culture; the key is that they must have access to unbiased sources without a vested interest (commercial profit) in the issue. Only with a relatively independent conduit of information can the masses make informed decisions on complex subjects. Clearly Dewey would be quite dismayed to see the state of the mass media today, being wholly owned and controlled by big corporate conglomerates. He would no doubt find it nearly impossible for a public to make intelligent decisions when pseudo-fascists like Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Laura Ingram, Rusty Humphries, Michael Reagan, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter (the proud daughter of a union buster), Mike Gallagher, Bob Grant and William Kristol; along with myriad centrist status quo apologists, set the agenda. In one paragraph of the book Dewey showed incredible foresight by remarking that society "seems to be approaching a state of government by hired promoters of opinion called publicity agents." With current political discourse being dictated by PR firms it's obvious he was right on the mark eighty years ago when he made the prediction.

Dewey comes back to an important question routinely throughout, that being what are the conditions that make the transformation possible for the "Great Society" to change into the "Great Community"? The Public and Its Problems does much to stimulate thought on this vital issue that still plagues contemporary society, especially in the United States when the state was able to wage a war on Iraq when virtually ninety percent of the world was against it!

Dewey's book serves as a tremendous introduction to history's greatest pragmatic philosopher.

Jon Dewey's "Before You Marry" is filled with many of the essential questions that any couple intending to marry must answer. This book is less a "how-to" than a workbook--it spends little effort advising couples to focus on or avoid certain things, but rather poses many questions about the essential issues involved in marriage.

The large issues such as definitions of love and marriage and views on finances and spending are addressed as are everyday details that couples fight about, such as where they like to eat and what traditions couples wish to follow at important holidays and family events.

The book asks couples to consider whether both partners will work and how the housework will be divided. Other critical issues addressed at length are perceptions of familial roles and such details of child-rearing as what times are appropriate for curfew, penalties for breaking rules, etc. Also provided is a brief guide for step-parenting and a sample planner for a household budget.

Rather than attempting to instuct, "Before You Marry" asks questions which are meant to lead to discussion about many of the issues, large and small, that couples tend to argue about or divorce over--questions that many couples neglect to ask while courting one another and later wish they had. I highly recommend this book for any couple thinking of long-term committment.

By presenting 14 different cases, Quinlan demonstrates theinterconnectedness of life in a biome or habitat. Outstanding softpencil drawings illustrate animal and plant species referred to in the text. I'd love to buy a class set for fourth graders to study in a nature/life science unit. What a great place to begin learning about ecology ... mummified pigs, reindeer skeletons, missing hares, trees that won't grow!

Dewy writes with simplicity and clarity. Readers familiar with the "Seth Material" by Jane Roberts will be very comfortable with Dewey's take on our self created universe. She spends a little bit too much of the first half of this 110 page volume bemoaning the limited world view of traditional religious and scientific thought, but this is quickly forgiven once she introduces the theory of the "endosphere" ( see Seth's "Framework two" or David Boem's 'Implicate Order"). Her ruminations on the effect of "cycles" is especially interesting. Her references to the theory of "laminated spacetime" are inspiring me to order her book of the same name. Here I believe that I will really sink my teeth into these most intriquing concepts.

Grubbs traces the plight of Southern tenant cotton farmers, both black and white, and the effort to provide tenant farmers with job security and financial stability through unionization. The book begins with the economic and agricultural fallout of the Civil War and on to the movement's initial organization, the New Deal, and efforts to join the AFL-CIO. In 1934 two young Socialists organized the Southern Tenants Farmers Union (STFU) near the town of Tyronza, Arkansas, in order to gain fair wages for tenant farmers who were kept in perpetual destitution.

This is a good book about agricultural labor, even if it can be a convoluted read due to its inherent political complexity. "Cry from the Cotton..." is well-researched and copiously noted. Grubbs has used a variety of sources, from government documents, local and union newspapers and magazine articles, to oral interviews, telegrams, and the STFU papers (housed at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill).

Miksa outlines the developments in library classification theory as developed in the 20.Century. E. C. Richardson, H. E. Bliss, W. C. B. Sayers and S. R. Ranganathan are identified as the main contributors and their theories and views are introduced. This is a well done, and could serve as a supplementary reading on a shorter course in classification theory. What is especially valuable is that Miksa tries to identify both the strong and weak side of this theory and the hidden assumptions. For example, he points out that neither Ranganat-han himself nor his followers have ever critically analyzed the basis of his approach. They have also paid insufficient attention to the strong points of other systems or to the weak point of his/their own. Also the neglecting of problems in language and semantics, and the believing in one best subject classification for all purposes belongs to the problematic baggage in classification theory. Miksa shows, that since 1950 the DDC has increasingly been based on this classification theory, and he recommends, that those responsible for the system should adapts a much more open and questioning stance towards the assumptions in this theory. Miksa's investigation of these theoretical problems remains, however, on a rather rudimentary level. There is a lack of broader horizon based on, among other, IR-research, citation-based retrieval, epistemology, and theories in semantics and semiotics.

See also my review: Hjørland, B. (1999). Review of Francis L. Miksa: The DDC, The Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-Modern Library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5), 475-477.

On the one hand, there's not a lot to this book -- it's short (30 pages), small (5.5" x 8.5"), composed of typewritten pages with some illustrations. On the other hand, there's a lot to this book. It crams much information and helpful tips into those thirty pages. The first 7 pages are talking in general about clowning in general, & gospel clowning in particular. The remainder of the book is a collection of skits, suitable for either 1 clown or for a small clown troupe. The skits include:
1 Clown Skits - Steal No More, Hop to Heaven, I'm Just Trying to be Good, Grow, Laundry Lesson
Multiple-Clown Skits- Cheap-Skates (one of my favorites, incidentally), X-Ray Machine, Outcast, Palm Reader, Wash Away My Sins
It also includes descriptions of simple-to-make clown props, including Pepsi Light (a soda can that 'lights' with a candle on top), the X-Ray machine, 'angel' wings made out of balloons, and several other balloon creations. It's a very good bargain.

This collection of essays on John Dewey's Logic is, on the whole, outstanding. The essays situate Dewey's work, make clear the negative consequences for philosophy that have flowed from the discipline's failure to follow Dewey, demonstrate the contemporary relevance of his work, and probe some problems and areas for further work. The technical essays by Thomas Burke are astonishing, if over-specialized, and the essays by Vincent Colapietro and John Stuhr are remarkably rich and thought-provoking high points--easily among the very best recent essays on pragmatism.