Eric Johnson Books

This review mostly concerns the Enquiry. The Letter is primarily a defense of Hume's earlier Treatise of Human Nature, while his Abstract is an anonymous review of the Treatise. It strikes me as very funny, though not surprising, that Hume would review his own work. Funny because any author would give his right arm to get at least one favorable review when all the other critics are completely missing its point. Unsurprising because Hume was probably one of the only people alive at that time who could truly grasp all the facets of his radical philosophical claims.

The Enquiry was written after the Treatise. Hume, though he claimed the opposite, seems never to have really recovered from the blow he took from seeing his Treatise "fall dead born from the press." As a result, his Enquiry is far more cautious in the steps it takes. (For those of you who have read both, yes, I swear, Hume IS more cautious. Compare the claims.) A more robust philosophical stance is taken in his Treatise, while a more focused stance is taken in his Enquiry.

The Enquiry is mainly a work of epistemology and as such, scrutinizes our methods of acquiring knowledge. Making perhaps the most radical (and poignant) claim in all of modern philosophy, it posits, and supports, that there is NO causation, only conjunction. That, for example, when we see a glass drop and break, we cannot say we know gravity caused this (in the way we know two plus two equals four). All we see is constant conjunction. The connection is lacking, i.e., it is not inconceivable that the glass wouldn't bounce, turn to ash, or dissolve into sand (the way it is inconceivable that two plus two equals five). This, in effect, nullifies all the so called "laws" of nature that are formed by science. (Note that this does not state that there are no laws of nature, just that we really can never make the claim that we ever really know there are laws of nature.)

This could be thought of as the philosophical shot heard round the world. Agree or disagree, Hume must be answered. Hume has historically been charged with creating an intellectual and philosophical cul-de-sac with his skepticism. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Hume makes a claim which none can refute, but at the same time one which none can accept. In effect, Hume's philosophy seems to bind the human mind, stopping its journey of discovery and ultimately accomplishing what his predecessor, John Locke, set out to do, i.e., map the extent of human knowledge.

However, where one may see Hume's philosophy as shackles and fetters in the search for truth, one could also equally see his philosophy as liberation. Implicit in his philosophy is the idea that ANYTHING is possible. There are no shackles, no fetters, no limits; only those that we create for ourselves. Our limits are self-imposed, constructs of our observance (and inference) of connection. In this way Hume appears in the same light as the Eastern masters seeing that reality is not what we have (through experiential knowledge) believed it to be. It is something much more wondrous. In Zen, our causal thinking is the only barrier between the person and enlightenment. Hume could be seen as implying that when the idea of causality is removed, with only conjunction remaining in its place, the state of true knowledge and wisdom (true zen) is achieved.

This, of course, is only idle speculation. But it is stated so as to demonstrate the richness and immense possibility Hume's philosophy possesses when seen in the correct light. Instead of saying, "Nothing is certain," after reading Hume, one can say, with equal validity, "Anything is possible." The first statement approaches philosophy with despair. The second approaches it with a sense of childlike wonder and hope at the immense possibilities of reality. It approaches life as a beginning, not an ending. It approaches life as the philosopher approaches it.

If one accepts the methodology of Descartes in applying scepticism to reason and the senses, in effect denying the existence of all things but a "thinking thing," two entailments are logically consequent: Either Berkeley's idealism or Hume's scepticism. I don't accept Descartes' starting point, so I find the entailments confused and incoherent. But if one does accept Descartes' starting point, then the two extremes must be heeded. If for no other reason than observing the absurdity of either man's conclusions, it is valuable to read both entailments. But in their confused process, both men bring certain salient features to light.

Hume accepts Descartes starting point, making it his own. But to Descartes method, he adds Pyrrhonist scepticism: That all reason leads to infinite regress, and that all sensations (or impressions) can not be trusted.

Hume begins with the conclusion that all sense perception is either an impression or idea. Even memory and imagination, two other faculties of the mind, are conflated into these two species of perceptions, as impressions. Their difference is one of degree (vivacity), not of kind. Hence, Hume is the author of what is known as the "Copy Principle." Instead of unmediated, direct perception through the ordinary senses, all perception is mediated by the imagination into impressions and ideas. From this follows certain resemblances, contiguity, and causal associations between impressions or ideas, and from this association we develop a sense of self. But even the notion of causality here is one of implied inference, not of actual inductive reason. Hume denies there is any real causality that can be known, although we operate "as if" we infer cause from effect. Even probability is reduced to a mere association of ideas and/or impressions; because neither reason (which always leads to infinite regress) or senses (which can always be deceived) can actually be true. The Enquiry also treats of miracles and the testimony of others derisively; but don't we rely on the testimony of others who claim the earth is round rather than flat, just as we rely on others who testify to miracles in a byegone era? After all, few of us have direct experience with a spherical earth (Popper makes this observation).

Hume's method incorporates five kinds of scepticism: (i) methodological, (ii) conceptual, (ii) nomological, (iv) explanatory, and (v) reductive empiricism. His commitment to scepticism is not without some capitulation. While he denies absolute causality and inductive inference and probability in an actual senses, he relies on them for practical purposes. One can't remain a pyrrhonist for long; some elements of reason and some degree of confidence in impressions is necessary for ordinary life. But if one starts with Descartes' starting point, extreme scepticism is a necessary entailment. Which, after seeing Hume deny so much intuition, is it really worth starting with Descartes' scepticism? Answering that question is what makes Hume interesting.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

Hume, I and many others think, was the greatest philosopher to have written in English, and this is the book to pick up if you want to introduce yourself to Saint David's distinctive brand of classical empiricism. This is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy, and it's hard for me to see how anyone interested in the history of modern thought can avoid reading this book or the corresponding sections of Hume's Treatise.

As is well-known, the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was intended as an encapsulation and popularization of the views Hume defended in Book I of his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume assumed that book's commercial failure could be accounted for by its length, difficulty, and lack of accessibility, and so, being a man who desired literary fame, he hoped to acquire commercial success by presenting the same ideas in a more appealing and accessible manner. Unfortunately, it seems Hume misunderstood what the literati of his day were looking for in a philosophical treatise. For the Enquiry, like the Treatise before it, didn't bring him the fame he sought. Still, Hume did understand what goes into writing excellent philosophical prose, and consequently this book is a much easier read than Book I of the Treatise. Indeed, this book constitutes an excellent introduction to Hume's thought, and, except for maybe Berkeley's Three Dialogues, I can't think of another primary source that would serve as a better introduction to classical British empiricism.

Now, let's get to the ideas here. Hume, like the other classical empiricists, was primarily concerned with the psychological question of the origin of our concepts. About the answer to this question, the empiricists were all agreed--our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

The traditional way of placing Hume within the story of empiricism goes something like this. Hume takes up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion. Whereas Locke and Berkeley hadn't been wholly consistent empiricists, Hume, the true believer, demonstrates that classical empiricism leads to a pretty thoroughgoing skepticism. Since he's wholly convinced of the truth of his empiricist premises, Hume is willing to accept the skepticism that goes along with them. However, those who aren't convinced of that his empiricism is obviously correct think that Hume has actually demonstrated the implausibility of his empiricism. If this is where empiricism leads, they think, then it's clear that we need to reject empiricism. Indeed, some, like Thomas Reid, view Hume's arguments as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of his sort of empiricism. On this interpretation, Hume's philosophy essentially presents a dilemma for all future thinkers: abandon empiricism, or accept empiricism along with Humean skepticism.

But a different view of Hume, one of Hume as proposing a wholly naturalistic account of the human mind, has recently emerged as a competitor to the general conception of Hume's place within philosophy sketched in the previous paragraph. This interpretation downplays Hume's skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

If this view is correct, then Hume has abjured many of the normative aims of traditional epistemological inquiry. He isn't attempting to show how we can answer a skeptic or why we have good reason to believe what we think we know. Instead, he wants us to stand back from our everyday beliefs and think about the natural processes that result in them. How, exactly, do our minds operate? How do we come to think what we do about the world? Hume thinks that this sort of inquiry will lead us see that, at some point, the explanation of why we think what we think reaches certain brute facts about the operation of the human mind. When we reach these points, there is nothing more to be said. We simply can't help thinking in these ways, and we lack the resources to demonstrate that these ways of thinking constitute an accurate way to represent the operation of the external world. And, Hume claims, it turns out that many of the fundamental elements of our conception of the world--the belief that things stand in causal relations to one another, the belief that we can know that there is a world outside our minds, the belief the future will resemble the past--end up not being open to ratification by experience. With respect to beliefs of these sorts, we ultimately have to appeal to custom in order to explain their existence and popularity. Hume, then, can be seen as demolishing the pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account of human thinking.

First I would like to commend the excellent review of this book by CT Dreyer in which he correctly shows how Hume extended the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley to the point where skepticism seemed our only honest way of thinking about our knowledge of the world. Hume's questioning of induction, of how we can be sure tomorrow will be like today , his questioning of how we can trust our senses to know the outside world, his questioning of how we can hold our world logically together when analysis reveals that there is no necessary connection between ' cause' and 'effect' in everyday life action means he wakened not only Kant from his dogmatic slumber but Philosophy itself from the sense that it will provide absolute understanding.
Hume is a very clear writer. I remember reading the famous billiard ball account of causality in which our common sense view of ' before' and ' after' is questioned and taken apart. I believe Hume says after this account, something to the effect and ' still when we leave the room we leave by the door and not by the window'. A friend of mine in this class when the class ended opened the window ( on the ground floor ) and went out that way.
This is difficult and great philosophy. I do not pretend to understand it or its implications fully. A test of the mind and a necessary read for anyone who would know Western Philosophy.

This has to be one of my favorite books. I have read it several times and each time it still captivates my interest!

What a story!

And talk about memories . . . No, I've never been on Mt. Everest - Popocatepetl, 17,887 ft is the highest I've been (on foot) - but I did spend untold hours back in the stacks of the Main Library at the University of Texas in Austin, in the early 1950s, poring over accounts of the English expeditions to Everest (and elsewhere in the Himalaya and Karakoram) in the 1920s and 1930's. Those old thick books with their thick knife-cut pages and stilted or candid photographs made you want to go to Tibet, and something about their musty smell made you want to take a bathroom break. And then get back to what Younghusband and Smythe and Odell and Noel and Norton and Somervell - those subsidiary phantoms within the Everest saga - had to tell.

Those books, and accounts of other climbs (in Europe or Africa or closer to home in the Americas) forced me onto steep rock. I climbed semi-seriously from 1952 until 1958 and desultorily for about fifteen years thereafter. But nothing along the lines of the climbers in Ghosts of Everest: Anker, Hahn, Norton, Politz, Richards. Among others.

The three co-authors - Hemmleb, Johnson, and Simonson - made a wise decision to enhance their story's narrative thrust and coherence by choosing William Nothdurft to put it all together. He did a wonderful job; he's a hell of a writer. The maps and photographs are illuminating, though some of the photos are too strongly backlighted.

A human-interest side-story in the book concerns BBC producer Peter Firstbrook and associate producer Graham Hoyland. Hoyland had championed BBC's support of the Mallory & Irvine Research Expedition of 1999 for more than a year. Hoyland was a former Everest climber and grandnephew of T.H. Somervell of the 1924 Everest expedition. Not until October 1998 (the main party of the expedition ended up arriving in Kathmandu on 18 March 1999) did Hoyland's boss Firstbrook get into the mix with his various bureaucratic ploys and games. Things went along, largely downhill, in fits and starts. In the end the expedition was mounted, but Hoyland was sent home by Firstbrook on a flimsy medical excuse. Firstbrook's insincerity was made manifest when he, Firstbrook, came down with a much more serious medical condition but refused, in spite of the expedition doctor's advice, to go back down to lower altitude. There's also the story of the midstream much-changed legal contract Firstbrook tried to get expedition leader Simonson to sign.

Aargh! But then again, anyone who has tried to negotiate a contract between a private party and an institution, bureaucracy, government, or politician probably knows how downright duplicitous any of the latter can be. Their saving grace is that they are usually pretty dumb. I Googled `Peter Firstbrook' today and see, with some satisfaction and a somewhat patched image of the BBC, that Peter is no longer with them. He evidently shuffled off (or was shuffled off) to another film production outfit, Mosaic, in 2002.

Hey, there are lots of ambitious guys out there. I well remember one day (actually it was 29 July 1957) that Yvon Chouinard grabbed me with "I think I've rediscovered Baxter's Lost Pinnacle! Let's go climb it before someone else does!" And we did, alternating leads. (By luck, since Yvon was a much better climber, he got to lead the final overhang pitch.) For years I had in my collection of climbing hardware a horizontal piton marked `URE' for `Ulf Ram-Erickson,' Baxter's climbing partner - they were often described as "two solo climbers, roped together" - we took off that Pinnacle that day. Sure, Yvon was ambitious, but he wouldn't scheme to crawl up over someone's back.

Typically, in the mountains, it's a world of clear air, hard dark rock, white snow, tiny flowers in moss, and wonderful straightforward people. People like Mallory and Irvine. And like the members of the 1999 Expedition who went up to Everest to find and commemorate them. Ghosts of Everest is their very well told story.

I was only vaguely familiar with the story of Mallory and Irvine before reading this. Hemmelb does a nice job of interweaving the story of Mallory's 1924 attempt at Everest with that of the 1999 expedition that went in search of his body. For anyone interested in Everest and the history of attempts to climb it, I can recommend this book highly.

I had never heard of Mallory or Irvine until the day the news mentioned Mallory was found. All these years later I decided to read this book to answer the curiosity I had over them.

I am intrigued with the question of did they reach the summit before they died back in 1924. Many have argued they failed and the authors decided to see if they could answer the debate.

This is a good read as the authors gave accounts of both the climbs of Mallory and Irvine and the Simonson group that went to find them. The book has great details and good photographs throughout. I actually looked at the photos of Mallory several times. Kind of awed for some reason.

The authors are most assuredly in awe of both Mallory and Irvine and it shows in the book. Especially when they found Mallory.

You get the feeling they really want them to have made the summit and they offer some convincing arguments. Such as some of Mallory's notes suggest they took more oxygen bottles then thought. The location of an Oxygen bottle showed they were further along then thought and the possibility that Odell who commented on seeing them at the second step might have actually seen them on the third.

Does the book prove they made it? Not really. There is no serious proof. The fabled camera might answer it but it is thought to be with Irvine who was never found. There is also the claim of leaving a photograph of Mallory's wife on the summit and it was not found on Mallory's body. One thing the authors mention however, is that they didn't find proof to suggest the failed in their attempt so the question remains.

Overall you might find yourself hoping they did made it as it's a classic tale of man against the elements.

I found myself hoping they did.

This is a beautifully and lavishly illustrated, textually rich book. Its pages demand the reader's undivided attention and are sure to enthrall all mystery lovers, Everest aficionados, nostalgia junkies, history buffs, and climbing enthusiasts. This book is sure to provide the reader with many hours of enjoyment.

The book chronicles the search for George Mallory and Andrew Irvine by the 1999 Mallory & Irvine Research Expedition. It juxtaposes the dramatic turn of events during their expedition with those of the 1924 British Everest Expedition which saw Mallory and Irvine attempt a summit climb, only to disappear into the mists of Everest, never to be seen again. It makes for a spell binding narrative, as past events are woven through present day ones.

The 1999 Mallory & Irvine Research Expedition was a meticulously well prepared and well organized venture. With its discovery of George Leigh Mallory's body, it enjoyed much success. The research and analysis that went into its ultimate, well thought out conclusions were comprehensive and fascinating, with its strong reliance upon forensics and deductive reasoning. Their reconstruction of Mallory's and Irvine's last climb is riveting. Unfortunately, the ultimate question still remains unanswered. Did they or did they not reach the summit of Mount Everest back in 1924?

The beautiful photographs of the personal effects found upon Mallory's person underscore a certain poignancy about the discovery of Mallory's well preserved body. The photographs which memorialize this discovery are amazingly lovely and tasteful, considering its subject matter, and hauntingly illustrate the finality with which Everest may deal with mountaineers, no matter how accomplished.

The photographs also highlight how ill equipped for the harsh climatic conditions were the early Everest expeditions. It is amazing, and a credit to those early expeditioners' courage and fortitude, in braving such an inhospitable and harsh terrain with the inadequate clothing and equipment available to them at the time. Mallory and Irvine were certainly intrepid explorers!

This book is a fitting tribute to two men who sought to make a historic summit and, in their attempt, would forever be a part of Everest.

This book is the best quick reference I've seen out there. It does not go into great detail on the commands. But usually gives you what you need. It does not have the blah blah blah most books have. It just has the commands and the options needed to do most anything you'll need. The only thing better ... the internet.

I have been a UNIX professional now for more years than I would care to think about. I find this book a personal library "must have".. It's style is open, and easy to understand from the beginner to the seasoned professional (who can at times forget what the "date" options are or which cron columns are which! :)
I personally recommend this as a "first book" to those who wish to join the ranks of us UNIX drones.. This book and a few weekend courses at their local C-College for UNIX I and II..

Great Author for Unix and Linux. This book is
put together very easily to read and understand. Goes step by step with the "How to" stuff.

This book is well written, well configured and is the course material I use to teach Unix. This book is a must have for the new to nearly new sysadmin type person. I actually wore mine out. Thanks for writing such a clear and concise book.

If you are new to Unix then this is a great book to get you started. It clearly tells how to get around the Unix environment and is a great reference book. I would be surprised if a new user could not find everything he/she needs in this book. The inclusion of switches for each command was extremely helpful as was the DOS to Unix cross reference.

A school required book. Purchased for a college course and used quite a lot. Great information and examples, I will be keeping it for future reference in my career!

The book was just as described. I do not like it only because it is a school book, but it was brand new and in great shape. The time it shipped was as expected.

I used this book for a college class as well, the book provides not only the concepts of the subjects you may have to explore and write, but also provides examples and exercises that help you focus in on the most important parts of the writing (which helps for your own work).

I recently used this textbook in a college course. All of the essays are short, easy to read, and cover a variety of interesting topics.

I am grateful for this attempt to bring the fields into discussion regarding soul care.

Eric Johnson's new title, Foundations for Soul Care, is a mammoth of psychospiritual elucidations,religious history, philosophical intricacies, and psychological discoveries.

A Christian Psychology, in Johnson's appraisal is, "a science in the approximation to the knowledge of God about human beings." Johnson's work is quite commendable for his, fair-mindedness, erudition, clinical sophistication, and biblical accuracy.

Johnson's Reformed epistemology is quite evident throughout his book's main proposal: Christians ought to do soulcare from a Theocentric and biblically rooted epistemology about the nature of human beings. The current waves of psychological therapies are, according to Johnson, based on a reductionistic/mechanico-biological worldview of care. These models have neglected the ethicospiritual aspects or spheres of created beings. At the same time, such a neglect of the other spheres of created beings by the psychological/counseling community, e.g., psychosocial, ethical, spiritual, has therefore created a serious damage to the created structures of created beings, and a false dichotomy between a "secular" and "sacred" cosmos.

Johnson's theology informs him at this point to declare all of the created order, and consequently, of created beings, as belonging to God the creator of the Universe. In other words, Jesus is the Lord of Psychology,and as such, Christians doing soulcare ought to become bilingual in the dialects of modern psychological science, in order to bring the most glory to Christ.

Created beings and the created order, Johnson informs us, are fallen and tarnished by sin. So, doing Christian soulcare has to be based on the Bible (as the soulcare provider's main template), but it should also have a template that is highly sophisticated in the understanding of psychological/neuroscience research.

Scripture is to become our lens to appreciate the goodness of God in the created order (secular psychological discoveries should be read, digested, critiqued, and biblically exegeted in order to know anything that God in his goodness has granted his fallen created beings to know about human nature).

Johnson's book is a seminal work that merits serious consideration by those institutions, guilds, and religious communities that seek to glorify God in their soul care. Johnson's proposed model for a Christian Psychology For Soul Care, stands quite apart from models of counseling that seek to root the care of souls on a purely bibliocentric perspective; while becoming neglecful of the significance of psychological science. Truth is also found in the created order, and as such, Christian soulcare providers ought to engage their world with the biblical lens of scripture to read the book of nature (e.g., Calvin's "Institutes").

Johnson's treatment of the issues is, however,quite fair in dealing with the disparities, confusion, or lack of a clear consensus within both the BC Models of soul care; but also by critiquing the lack of consensus within the traditional integrationist approaches that are in vogue in the counseling field today. His distinctions, between Traditional Biblical counseling and the Progressive Biblical counseling approaches are quite helpful for readers who may be unaware of these particulars.

His book is intellectual, well-informed, detailed (thus the size), biblically attentive, hermeneutically grounded, and bilingual.
Johnson starts his proposed model by emphasizing the basis of Christian soul care---soul care ought to be rooted in the Bible- thus, Johnson presents a high view of the Bible. Such a high view of the Scriptures, guides his endeavors in this book.

At the same time, what is quite appealing in his proposal (see chapter 11 of his book)is the suggestion that, Christians doing soulcare ought to develop a biblical template (nurtured by Bible study, scripture memorization, and prayer)that would permit them to read, with the aim of bringing glory to God, the various templates that have being developed by "secular" models of therapy and soulcare.In this regard then, Christian soulcare providers ought to become bilingual (see,Wayne Oates "Pastoral Counseling.")

What is remarkable in Johnson's proposal for a Christian psychology, is his high view of Scripture. Furthermore, Johnson suggests that this template or lens (see,John Calvin's "Institutes for the Christian Religion.")should be also nurtured (formed) by the study and appraisal of the Christian classics, which explain and expand the biblical doctrines of scripture.

Not to spoil future readers' fun, suffice it to say that, this work has been long awaited for. It is a radical challenge to Christian soulcare providers to not "become afraid of psychological science," nor to lag in "creating a Christian science of psychology," and to "have a high view for the Bible," as they seek to bring the most glory to God within his created order in the universe,and the souls of human beings.

The book is informed by semiotic theory and speech-acts theory throughout; but, it reads easily. As stated above, Johnson is quite detailed in his writing here, so the reader should be prepared to bear with some "excursions," in his writing. A semiodiscursive understanding of intertextuality pervades Johnson's proposal as well.

This book, which Jonson dedicates to his lovely wife Rebekah, has been the epitome of his love for the Church of Jesus Christ. His contribution to soulcare should be greatly appreciated and validated as the right step towards the realization of a biblically based, psychologically well-informed, and spiritually wise journey into the depths of the human soul.

Johnson presents and elaborates on other biblical concepts such as: the dynamics between interiority/outwardness, the role of the Holy Spirit in Soul care,the biblical doctrine of the Triune God, the imago Die (image of God in created beings), and Christoformity (through counseling to develop in the counselee the character of Christ).These and many more issues are seriously dealt with by Johnson in his masterful, balanced, compassionate, and biblically astute treatise.

Now that you have received a foretaste of what is to come. I have only one word for you: Take up (the book) and Read!
Best Regards,
To God Alone the Utmost Glory, and Peace and Love to His Church. Through Christ, he who is the Lord of the Church.!!

Eric Johnson combines scriptural interpretation with astute observation to develop a deep, thoughtful, intellectual, and complex (in the best senses of those words) approach to Christian psychology. Yet Johnson's work is eminently practical in its purpose and outcome.

Johnson shows how insight into human nature leads to Christlikeness--maturity in reflecting the Creator of human nature. He does so through biblical theology, historical theology, and practical theology.

I highly recommend Foundations as a core text that expands the conversation regarding what makes Christian counseling truly Christian. Readers won't agree with every point, but with eminent scholarship Johnson thoroughly addresses every point worth discussing."

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Soul Physicians, Spiritual Friends, and Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction .

On The Day His Daddy Left is a very moving picture book about the sensitive subject of divorce by Eric and Kathleen Adams. A young boy must come to terms with the day his father leaves the house. He must become used to seeing his father only at certain times of the week, and a question wracks him - "Is it my fault?" A heart-touching, powerful, and highly recommended story about adjusting to traumatic change, On The Day His Daddy Left is realistically illustrated by the artwork of Layne Johnson and an important addition to school library, community library, and family counseling collections.

I wish a book like this had been available when I experienced divorce as a child. The text pulls the reader in as they wonder what the question written on Danny's piece of paper could be? Near the conclusion of the book we discover Danny is wondering "Is it my fault?", a question that torments many children during a divorce. The art is masterfully done with compelling facial expressions, making this a must have for libraries and counselors.

What a wonderful resource for parents, teachers, and counselors! I have not seen a better book for younger children on the pain and confusion of divorce. The text is clear and compelling, and easy to understand without being "written down" to its audience. The question "Whose fault is it?" is one that many children struggle with, and the authors treat the issue in a way that is caring and reassuring, yet very realistic. Beautifully illustrated, it speaks to children who are experiencing divorce as well as those who want to understand what their friends or relatives are feeling. Family therapists should also really appreciate this book. Great job!

The book, The Adaptive Decision Maker is a compilation of the views of the authors, along with the views of other authors as expressed through their works. This book provides information as to what strategies individuals use to make decisions in many different situations they are faced with. Ultimately, they believe that decision-making strategies are contingent upon a variety of task, context, and individual difference factors. Their research shows that individuals are generally adaptive in their responses to different decision situations. The authors also show situations in which decision makers may not be adaptive. They conclude the book by providing insights about how to improve decisions and about opportunities for future research.

The first topic the book covers is flexibility in decision-making. Here, they explain that many social factors can influence decision-making. They believe that when an individual makes a decision, he or she may feel accountable to others such as family members or superiors in a business organization. I agree with this standpoint, however, it is important to remember that these same social factors affect their family members and others in their business organization when they make decisions. A more important fact to me is to what extent different people are affected by social factors.

The book then goes into depth on the different strategies that individuals use when making decisions. These stem from compensatory versus no compensatory, consistent versus selective processing, amount of processing, alternative-based versus attribute-base processing, formation of evaluations, and quantitative versus qualitative reasoning. They discuss the fact that a "person's repertoire of strategies may depend upon many factors, such as cognitive development, experience, and more formal training and education." They believe that decision behavior is a highly contingent form of information processing. While I believe that it is true, I do not feel that the book properly explains why this is so. The authors give many examples of decision-making, however they fail to explain why the specific decisions are made.

In general, they believe that decision behavior is highly sensitive to task factors and context factors. They believe the cognitive effort required to make a decision can be usefully measured in terms of the total number of basic information processes needed to solve a particular problem using a specific decision strategy. In addition, they state that individual differences in decision behavior may be related to differences in how effortful various elementary information processes are to the individuals.

A book worth reading to develop an insight on the principles that guide consumer information processing and selection of relevant decision strategies in various choice environments. The framework that is presented here is both intuitively appealing and useful in guiding marketing thought and practice. The book itself is written to appeal to multiple classes of readers, i.e., general interest readers, academics, and practicing professionals. The underlying notions of consumer decision making based on adaptive behavior; and information processing based on "bounded rationality" are presented within a well-researched framework. The book is developed to provide useful insights on decision behavior emerging from various disciplinary orientations like, the behavioral sciences, cognitive psychology, consumer studies, and marketing among others. The framework proposed is well applied in everyday decision situations that pertain to businesses and consumers. The authors themselves are renowned researchers in their fields and therefore provide invaluable insight on adaptive consumer behavior and the limitations of human information processing.

This book has all the latest riders from the 2002 U.S. Supercross and Motocross race season. Carmichael, McGrath, Stewart, Lusk, Reed, LaRocco, Ferry, Vuillemin, Tortelli, Pastrana, etc.... The photos are incredible, and the quality of the book is first rate.

A must have for every motocross enthusiast! The book positively bulges with full color photos by Simon Cudby...incredible...the photos pop right off the page. And the articles by RacerX editor Davey Coombs and RacerX writer Eric Johnson give all the record breaking details of the 2002 season.

If you don't know what size or color gear the dirtbike rider in your life wants, buy this book. Buy it no matter what...it's a life time keepsake.

As always Caillou wants to help, but isn't quit big enough. My grandaughter loves it!

Having just broken the 200 mark for Amazon reviews, I'll now turn my attention to a book from the much-maligned, sadly ignored, massively underrated "Caillou" series.

"Caillou Watches Rosie" is directly based on a story from the "Caillou" TV series. In this story, Caillou is asked to look after his little sister Rosie because his Mommy wants to take a nap. This means that they have to play quietly. Caillou tries to interest Rosie in coloring some pictures, but when Rosie creates a mess, Caillou tries to stop her and ends up waking up Mommy.

Caillou learns that it can be hard to be a big brother at times, but it can be worth it. There is a little whining/crying from Caillou, but hey, he's still learning.

The illustrations look a lot like the TV series, but are somewhat more brightly and richly colored. Many of them are also full page.

This book also includes a "good habits" calendar that will help kids to keep track of things such as putting away toys or brushing teeth.

These books were exactly what I expected. Great condition, packaged correctly and priced better then the stores.

my son loves school buses, and he loves caillou so this book is great, colorful pages!