A fantasic edition like all these Oxfords. It has a long introduction detailing Berkeley's life and works, and numerous notes throughout the work itself.

As for the work itself it's a recasting of Berkeley's earlier work the Principles into dialogue form. Quite what the point of this was since the Principles were already easy to read is unclear, (although a case could be made that the Dialogues require less prior knowledge of Locke than the Principles did and are therefore a better introductory work) but it's difficult to be sorry that he did as he writes the dialogue form so well, easily the best since Plato, and in my opinion probably marginally better than Plato. He handles the character who he's trying to refute much better than Plato ever did. Unfortunately his ideas aren't on a level with Plato's. As with the Principles his writing sweeps you up and it almost convinces you that perhaps matter doesn't exist and the mind is all there is, but once again take a step back and the flaws become all too apparent.

Berkeley's too important to ignore though, and besides his books are a pleasure to read. You can't do better than this edition.

The attitude of most reviewers to the philosophical thoery proposed by Bishop George Berkeley seems to be 'jolly good show old boy, wonderful stuff, shame it's just not true, and written so beautifully, more's the pity.'

Given that all the reviewers are so utterly convinced that matter and the everyday world are really real, what else could be expected ? Berkeley's philosphy is so great and so stunning precisely because it directly attacks this great bedrock assumption of the ordinary human mind. And contrary to popular belief, his attack does not fail - it merely falls on deaf ears or blind eyes.

As per Berkeley, only God's mind and the ideas within it have real existence. Fortunately for us, included within the ideas in God's mind are the idea of an external world and the idea of human minds. Our human minds involuntarily produce the idea of the external world (God has so programmed our minds), but voluntarily produce other lesser ideas (ie personal dreams and fantasies and various private thoughts). Berkeley does not deny that we experience a 'real' world, he just denies that it has any reality apart from being mentally perceived. His theory cannot be proved by pure reason (since faith in the existence of God is an absolute must for a person to accept the Bishop's views)and in this sense his theory is speculative, but equally it cannot be disproved, since in one way or another we can never separate the external world from our perception of it.

On the other side, critics of Berkeley, absolutely have to deal with Hume's destruction of the external world through the use of pure reason. Following Hume, Locke's positing of 'matter' i.e. an independently existing external world, is shown to be just as speculative as Berkeley's positing of Mind. So where does that leave the critics ?

And supporters of Berkeley, can take heart from the fact that Kant who famously reconciled Hume and Berkeley, in fact does no more (and certainly no less) than fill in the gaps and supply the missing terms to the Bishop's argument. Is it really such a very great leap to go from Kant's noumenal realm and synthetic a priori, to the existence and workings of a benevolent God ? Some would say that rightly understood, the two are identical. If you ask me, Kant, quite cunningly smuggled the Bishop in through the front gate, by the simple ruse of dressing him up in a non-theological guise - much more palatable, you understand, and of course, much less threatening.

Of course, all the above exposition, is strictly for the religious sceptics - for the believers, the good Bishop is more or less, right on the money. Rock on, good sir, rock on. Let's all sing along to the Beatles - O, he gets by with a little help from his Kant, yeah, he gets by with a little help from his Kant.

This Oxford Philosophical Texts student edition of George Berkeley's best known work features a helpful introduction, glossary, and notes by philosopher Jonathan Dancy (author of _Berkeley: An Introduction_ and editor of the Oxford Philosophical Texts edition of Berkeley's _Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge_). The forty-page introduction includes a short biography of Berkeley, a synopsis of the _Dialogues_, a summary and analysis of Berkeley's philosophy including critical discussion of his main arguments, and an exposition of the relation between the _Dialogues_ and the _Principles_. Also featured: a bibliography and an analytical table of contents for the dialogues.

As for Berkeley himself, he probably needs no introduction from me. Arguably the most judicious commentary on his thought is that of T.H. Green, who in his great _Introduction_ to Locke and Hume remarked as follows:

"His [Berkeley's] purpose was the maintenance of Theism, and a true instinct told him that pure Theism, as distinct from nature-worship and daemonism, has no philosophical foundation, unless it can be shown that there is nothing real apart from thought. But in the hurry of theological advocacy, and under the influence of a misleading terminology, he failed to distinguish this true proposition -- there is nothing real apart from thought -- from this false one, its virtual contradictory -- that there is nothing other than feeling. The confusion was covered, if not caused, by the ambiguity, often noticed, in the use of the term 'idea.' This to Berkeley's generation stood alike for feeling proper . . . and for conception, or an object thought of under relations. . . . Misled by the phrase 'idea of a thing,' we fancy that idea and thing have each a separate reality of their own, and then puzzle ourselves with questions as to how the idea can represent the thing . . . . These questions Berkeley asked and found unanswerable. There were two ways of dealing with them before him. One was to supersede them by a truer view of thought and its object, as together in essential correlation constituting the real; but this way he did not take. The other was to avoid them by merging both thing and idea in the indifference of simple feeling . . . -- an attempt which contradicts itself, since it virtually admits [the] existence [of such oppositions as inner and outer, subjective and objective] while it renders them unaccountable." [_Hume and Locke_, 1968 Apollo edition, pp. 140-142.]

This summary may not be quite adequate to Berkeley's thought overall, as later in life he does appear to have come round to a view not altogether unlike Green's. However, it seems to me to be an eminently fair assessment of the Berkeley represented in the present volume.

At any rate Berkeley was a fascinating thinker and this volume is as good an introduction to him as is available. The _Dialogues_ should eventually be read in conjunction with the _Principles_ (which they were intended to support), but anyone looking for a single volume in which to meet this great and seminal philosopher will be safe in beginning with this one.

I found this in a Bennington, VT bookstore after my wife Andi pointed it out and bought it right away based on a warm description of how loving a cat could be, even moments after killing and gutting a grouse. Berkeley does a wonderful job of showing that duality of cats, of how at once they're incredibly close to us they are as well as being close to natural hunting machines. Warmly written, funny and touching, she also fills out the book with very well-researched scientific info on feral cats, and cat populations. A must-read if you're a cat person and owner.

This book is out of print and copyrighted 1987, but it's the only book I found with information regarding a feral cat colony. The author's experiences with the feral cats living around her Vermont home are a delightful insight into the person/cat relationship, and her interest, curiosity, and research regarding the realities of feral cat colonies is incredibly useful to me, as a lay person is just starting to trap, spay/neuter, and return strays and ferals in the Los Angeles area. A must-read!

I was hooked! I love cats, and all other felines for that matter, but fiction is more my range. This, however, is a great book! I LOVED IT!!! A must read! Yay! Heheh!

....Berkeley writer Burch presents an in-depth look at one of the more bizarre events concerning political activists in Berkeley. In 1992 Rosebud Abigail Denovo broke into the home of the chancellor of UC-Berkeley armed with a machete and was fatally shot by police. The public largely accepted this incident as the inevitable result of the political upheaval at PeopleÕs Park. However, Claire Burch, who has a long involvement with the Berkeley homeless and radical activists, determined to probe deeper into DenovoÕs life and death. ÒWhat Really Killed Rosebud?Ó is a compilation of materials: photographs of Denovo, newspaper accounts of the break-in episode, a complete autopsy report and numerous interviews with DenovoÕs friends and acquaintances. Largely through the interviews, a different picture of Denovo emerges. Certainly she was a driven, rebellious young woman, but also one who was concerned with the needs of those surviving on the streets. Burch leaves no doubt about where her sympathies lie. Describing the young woman as a ÒmartyrÓ with a Òsocial mission,Ó she questions whether DenovoÕs death could have been prevented. While it is clear that Burch finds society at fault, her book delves deeply into the recent troubled past of Berkeley and also itÕs homeless and dispossessed inhabitants.

Barbara Sloane Bookmarks Hills Newspapers

.WHAT REALLY KILLED ROSEBUD Claire Burch , Regent Press,Oakland,Ca. THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE , Feb 16, 2001

`Early the morning of August 25,1992, an intruder tripped a silent alarm on a basement window at the campus residence of University of California Chancellor Chang- Lin Tien. While Tien and his wife DiHwa remained in their bedroom, UC police, with help from Berkeley police officers, and a dog team from the Oakland police, painstakingly searched the large two story residence. In a second floor bathroom outside the Tien bedroom, Oakland officer Craig Chew discovered twenty year old Rosebud Abigail Denovo and said she lunged at him with a machete. Chew fired, hitting her four times. The shots were fatal and the controversy began. Born Laura Marie Miller in Lexington Kentucky, she ran away from home after time in a mental hospital,placed there by her desperate parents because of her conflicts with authority. She landed at PeopleÕs Park in Berkeley in l990. During the next eighteen months, as Rosebud Denovo, she became a regular at demonstrations surrounding the Park. Her death turned her into a PeopleÕs Park martyr, celebrated in song, poetry and story. Burch has spent many years documenting the people and events surrounding PeopleÕs Park. Her book, from a small Oakland publisher, Regent Press, begins with photos of Rosebud as a pretty blond child. It contains reproductions of newspaper accounts of the incident and difficult to read copies of her handwritten letters. The book carries the Rosebud legend onward.

When radical teen Rosebud Denovo entered the UC Berkeley chancellor's mansion in 1992 and was promptly shot dead by an Oakland cop, Claire Burch was out of town. But almost immediately upon arriving home, the Berkeley filmmaker was back in People's Park, where the activist's friends were demonstrating, mourning, and calling Rosebud a martyr. Burch had never heard of the dead girl, but "l got so caught up" in the story, she says, that she spent several years filming... interviews to create the video What Really Killed Rosebud? and a new book by the same name (Regent Press...). The official story of Rosebud's last hours "is so full of holes'" Burch says indignantly. The petite teen, weighing just over a hundred pounds, was neither tear-gassed to drive her out of the mansion so that she could be summarily arrested nor begged to surrender by authorities or loved ones, as is done in movies about terrorists. "The hunch," Burch reflects, "is that the officer who killed her was deliberately sent to the scene" because he was especially skittish, having been the victim of a recent shooting himself. "I think it was all thought out," says the author, whose interviews include one with an ambulance attendant who was summoned to the mansion after Rosebud was shot...

This book had me hooked from the word go. I couldn't put it down, and ended up reading it all in one sitting. The book is about an Indian graduate student's journey to finding "Mr. Perfect." Watching Gita grow and learn throughout the book is funny and at the end it is satisfying to see where she ends up. The characters all come alive, and the plot moves smoothly. A great book to read on the beach or just to break away from the everyday.

Gita Das is a 23-year-old graduate student at Berkeley in March 1984, the month and year that an astrologer in India told her she would meet her soulmate. Gita has absolutely no experience in love, concentrating on her studies and trusting the stars to take care of that for her. In March 1984, she meets the renowned poet Timothy Stalling and his friend Norvin -- Timothy had run into her adopted aunt and uncle in an airport and they asked him to deliver a gift to Gita, as he was in the same area.

Gita is sure this is the man for her, and thus starts a convoluted romantic persuing, but from an unexpected mix of characters.

Gita is sure there is a mtach out there for her, but she just has to find it. True to life, various relatives and friedns from India want to help her along, including her mother and Saroj Aunty. It is a long journey, sometimes sad, but also hopeful. The story includes Gita's many colorful and lively friends, which makes for a well-rounded story.

and intelligent and thought provoking. A MUST READ.

This book is great for an overview of UNIX and C. I find myself going back to it again and again for C syntax and listings of UNIX tools. While it could be improved upon, I have yet to find another book which displays what I want to know as neatly and concisely as this one. I'm probably going to get a second copy of it because I am wearing the first one out!

I got this book when i already knew much/most of it. It was still great just for the stuff which i didn't know or needed a quick reference for. A very well written book--even better than the usual o'reilly books which i get.

Originally published in 1981, the Men's Club is set in the Bay Area during the late 70s. A psychologist named Kramer gathers a small group of men in their mid-to-late thirties together to discuss guy stuff. The club starts out, writes Michaels, "trying to recapture high-school days. Locker-room fun. Wet naked boys snapping towels at each other's genitals." There's some drinking and pot smoking before the men migrate into more dangerous territory-a refrigerator stocked full of food for tomorrow's luncheon - a woman's group hosted by Kramer's wife.

Mixed in with the bacchanalia are men talking about themselves. These aren't men talking about sports or power tools, but strange, sometimes sad, stories about their relationships with women - sometimes their wives -- who they've connected with, but are still trying to process. Michaels does a satisfying job tying up the story with a cohesive ending and the writing is terse and engaging.

Also, it's not an especially dated book, because men haven't evolved much in the last 20 years.

Seven men, some acquainted and some strangers, meet one night to begin a club. This won't be a working man's club named for a large four-legged mammal or a toney businessman's city athletics and dinner club; instead it's a club dreamt up by a psychotherapist, modeled on the women's consciousness raising groups of the 1970s. Without an agenda, the men immediately focus on one subject -- women. They tell stories of bafflement, need, love, abuse, and marriage. They listen and they argue. They eat and drink and smoke and fight and break things. Their stories are outrageous and they sound true. Most of all, these men pay serious attention to one another. Michaels's masterful prose brings each man to life with gestures and dialogue and unforgettable stories. This is a small novel, but it brings important news from the gender wars. Women should read it, because it is both amusing and horrifying. These are characters you can hate and love just as if you knew them. In fact, you do know them. They are your brother, father, son, husband, lover, or friend.

Berkeley is one of the great philosophers, although arguably the one whose position as one is the most tenuous. His argument is that matter doesn't exist, and all there is are ideas and impressions that comes to us from God. It's an argument that can be easily destroyed by even an amateur philosopher, but Berkeley writes so beautifully that he does at least make you stop and consider, if only for a moment, that perhaps he may just be right. He's worth reading if only for entertainment - I have to say that I think he is the best writer of all the great philosophers (except possibly Nietzsche), even though his system is the one I like the least.

If you are studying Berkeley seriously then it would be best to get the Oxford editions of his Principals and Three Dialogues. They contain much longer and better introductions and numerous other notes. But it may also be worth your money to buy this book too. Although the majority of this book is the two works just mentioned, also included in this collection are several other rare works of Berkeley's including his notebooks and De Motu among others. It's extremely difficult to get hold of these outside of the reprint of the 1901 Collected Works, and so if like me you don't have $450 to throw around, this is your best option, especially since it is so cheap.

This book has proven to me to be one of the best philosophical works from the 18th century. Its clearness and lucidness surpasses many of the philosophers of that period. Even though Berkeley's theory and arguments may be considered most radical, he explains them with great care and you can almost take them for a fact.

Berkeley's concepts can be only examined out of pure reason basically, since his theory rest merely on speculative thought. Nor is it possible to show any concrete proof for his arguments, however I find it much harder to disapprove his concepts since it all depends on rational thinking and not material evidence. His views provoke an exciting approach to a new metaphysics and reality.

This book should be read with the utmost clearness of mind, and one must eliminate all prejudice from the mind. Although a fairly easy book to read, one must dedicate time to deep reflection when considering its arguments.

I highly recommend this book for those interested in philosophy, specially in metaphysics, this is a must-read!

Winner of Children's Book Council Picture Book of the Year 1974.

A classic of the Australian bush. A bunyip is a kind of mythical creature which lives in creeks. This bunyip wants to know what he looks like and who/what he is.

In his quest for self-discovery he encounters rebuffs from a platypus, wallaby, emu. then he meets a man who looks right through him and tells him bunyips don't exist. Finally he achieves affirmation through meeting another bunyip.

It sounds like a bit of existential angst for the picture-book set, but it is fine. The illustrations are a bit dark and gloomy in places, but faintly reminiscent of Maurice Sendak.

A good addition to a library collection.

Jenny Wagner's _The Bunyip of Berkeley's Creek_ is an award-winning picture book from Australia.

In it, a Bunyip (an ugly but harmless creature) emerges from the mud of a creek. Various animals, including a platypus and emu, tell him that a bunyip is ugly. Eventually he meets a scientist who looks "right through" him, and tells him that bunyips don't exist. Eventually he packs his belongings and hikes away from his home. He comes upon a billabong, pitches camp, and lo and behold meets another bunyip. The new bunyip is in need of the same friendship and reassurance that our first bunyip could have used at the beginning of the story.

Themes explored here are the value of support and friendship, and the importance of self-esteem. Also noted is the harm done by insults and indifference. Far from being preachy, the author and illustrator skillfully weave the theme into the plot.

The illustrations are dark, and frequently are smaller than the page, framed in white. They are reminiscent of Maurice Sendak.

The bunyip is no monster. He's not the horrific ghoul portrayed in movies such as Dot and the Kangaroo. He's an ugly but harmless patchwork of a beast, with mismatched body parts. His attitude is one of bewilderment, hopefulness, and persistence. I can't recommend this picture book highly enough. USA residents should check their public libraries, because the book is currently out of print in the USA.

Ken32

Our two and a half year old daughter loves this book, preferring it to many Caldicott winners and other fine books. I understand the appeal. The drawings are brilliant, truly fantastic. The story is provocative to a two year old: the Bunyip has a mysterious origin, doesn't understand who he is or what he looks like, gradually discovers that he is a Bunyip, and eventually finds another Bunyip to spend time with. It's a tale of self-discovery and friendship, what could be better.

I read this beautiful masterpiece and found that i LOVE FORESKIN. It tought me more than I could have ever found out by playing with my ownforeskin. If anyone has any more information about foreskin please e-mial me at lessthanjess9@aol.com

I think that Mr. Berkeley did a tremendous job in his research of the subject matter of foreskin.The book revealed many things to me that I did not know: i.e., the circumcision of men in the military to meet quotas. I found that very distrubing. The other interesting facts were that the custom of circumcision went back so far in time. Quite ironically, someone had asked me why the "David" statue was uncircumcised if David was a Jew. Until reading this book, I was unable to answer that question. Thanks for the opportunity to allow me to share some thoughts.

It tells you all about foreskin, and how people with foresking are better lovers.

An extremely important work in the history of philosophy that everyone reads and then dismisses. You should too!

First, this edition is, like the others in this Oxford range, superb, with an excellent long introduction and numerous helpful notes. You can't do better than this unless you're looking for all of his works shoved into one volume, like the Everyman. So basically, if you're looking to study Berkeley seriously, get this edition (and pick up the Dialogues too).

On to the work itself. Berkeley's starting point is Locke's theory of substance, so it's a good idea to familiarise yourself with that first. His basic proposition is Locke's theory of ideas, without the substratum supporting them - there is, therefore, nothing material in the world other than our minds. Berkeley is a brilliant writer and he sweeps you up so thoroughly in his arguments that you can't help but be convinced. But once you've stop reading and take a step back the gaping holes in his arguments become quickly and painfully apparent.

Regardless of the validity of his argument, it's worth buying the work for two reason; his historical importance, and the sheer quality of writing - it's a highly enjoyable work to read; only Plato equals Berkeley for easy and enjoyable to read works of philosophy.

This is a very important work of George Berkeley. On of its most interesting topics is that about the existence of matter. As, for human beings, the "existence" of something is related to its perception, there is a very close link between "things" and ideas. Both cannot have their existence completely proved. The arguments place the book among the most interesting on the top issues discussed in its time (empiricism, materialism, etc.)

This is not the place for a philosophical analysis of Berkeley's original text, and its content of argument. The review concerns the specific book edited by Dancy, and its worth in respect of its further contribution to understanding the Treatise.
This book is to be strongly recommended as it provides a multitude of resources that contextualise, criticise, and clarify, the positions put forward by Berkeley in this work.

The most substantial contribution is the extensive introduction comprised of 15 punchy sections, covering Berkeley's life, his academic heritage, and analysis of his thought (both internal and external to that given in the Treatise). Dancy is fair to Berkeley in setting forth the most robust defences of his position, and marshalling critical arguments against the Berkelian stance. This is supplemented by an extremely thorough set of endnotes that are continually present in the background of the text, offering detailed guidance whenever necessary, or desired.

Additionally, the book offers a summarised concise overview of the arguments provided in the Treatise, a glossary of archaic terms(!), and a very helpful short section entitled "How to use this book" (why don't more books include this sort of thing?). There is also a manageable annotated bibliography of further reading to trail a path for academic expansion.

Overall, I found that this book provided a systematic treatment of the text and provided a solid structure of support surrounding the subject. Also included, the letters between Berkeley and Johnson, provide an unexpected bonus. This book is relatively cheap, considering its breadth and depth. In my opinion, it is an ideal text through which to study (and enjoy) Berkeley's Treatise.