The Books/Reading Thread

[Vimana]

I've been reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt lately and it's a mixed bag. I think one of his main points is flat-out wrong: that we evolved reason for the purpose of persuasion. Also, I don't think he goes deeply enough into elements of morality in an evolutionary sense. However, I love how he puts relevance of many philosophers pre-Darwin in their place. Also, the studies he cites have given me interesting insight into human evolutionary psychology. Moreover, he does a great job illustrating the elements of human nature beyond different political viewpoints.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The Sofer novel is a little bland from a literary perspective, but so far is a decent story. The other two books are very good.

 

[monoxide_child]

 

[Ikard]

I've really been delving into the work of Ernest Hemingway. For Whom The Bell Tolls and A Farewell to Arms are two of my favorites right now.

 

[Vimana]

Just finished The Righteous Mind. It was insightful for understanding politics, but the author really doesn't go deep enough into human nature. Explanations for aspects of morality lack an evolutionary explanation, and I also completely disagree with the notion that racially homogenous societies are inherently more trusting and more selfless. I think the hive instinct can be extended to all of humanity if we are to connect while forgetting the arbitrary things that normally bind us.

The problem is not our grouping instinct, but how we use it. We connect based on differences like skin color rather than similarities like the faculties of our minds.

 

[monoxide_child]

Just finished The Righteous Mind. It was insightful for understanding politics, but the author really doesn't go deep enough into human nature. Explanations for aspects of morality lack an evolutionary explanation, and I also completely disagree with the notion that racially homogenous societies are inherently more trusting and more selfless. I think the hive instinct can be extended to all of humanity if we are to connect while forgetting the arbitrary things that normally bind us.

The problem is not our grouping instinct, but how we use it. We connect based on differences like skin color rather than similarities like the faculties of our minds.

why did you stop posting on the philosopher's forum??

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

I've just stared The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. This is in the original Middle English, with ample glosses.

 

[monoxide_child]

I've just stared The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. This is in the original Middle English, with ample glosses.

why can't people read this in an actual modern english??

has it even been translated into a contemporary readable english yet??

everybody keeps telling me how freaking awesome The Canterbury Tales is but i can't actually find a version that's actually fucking readable

 

[unknown]

yeah actually there's quite a few modern english translations. canterbury tales is pretty good...nothing like tales about sleeping with women and getting farted in the eye

 

[Dak]

CT is horrendous shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

You have little to no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Dak]

I know, given it's era etc etc. Doesn't matter to me. Was so bad I will never forget the waste of my life incurred on it's account in my English 131(?) class more than 10 years ago.

 

[Einherjar86]

It should matter to you. The fact that it doesn't betrays more ignorance than intelligence...

Just saying. If economics documents are so important, then reading Chaucer shouldn't be considered a waste of time.

 

[Dak]

I'm reading the Republic right now, not quite what is normally considered "economics" (although I think all philosophy is economic). It's shitty fiction. I've said this before. The fact that it is one of the most early surviving fictional pieces in English, doesn't make it any less shitty. Beowulf is earlier and not so pedantic and crude.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Canterbury Tales aren't compositionally crude. Its pedantic nature does not somehow decrease its value.

 

[Summerian]

First As Tragedy, Then As Farce
Slavoj Zizek

Just started, haven't gotten half way thru... not really impressed so far. But not bad, some good parts. But I haven't gotten to the part where 9/11 and the economic collapse 2008 is linked. Not sure it really can be without reaaaaaally stretching things...

 

[Einherjar86]

They're linked by the title Žižek chose for the book, which comes from Marx: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

9/11 is the tragic "apocalyptic" event of capitalism; the 2008 financial crisis is the farcical repetition.

Honestly, that's my least favorite book by Žižek that I've read. It's very flimsy and insubstantial.

 

[Summerian]

They're linked by the title Žižek chose for the book, which comes from Marx: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

9/11 is the tragic "apocalyptic" event of capitalism; the 2008 financial crisis is the farcical repetition.

Honestly, that's my least favorite book by Žižek that I've read. It's very flimsy and insubstantial.

really? You think?

Try again, go longer...

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just saying, don't let that be your only introduction to Žižek. You should read The Sublime Object of Ideology.

Or, at least Welcome to the Desert of the Real, which is very thin but far more substantial than Tragedy.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I'm reading the Republic right now

Nice, I am as well. I get bored with the dialogue every 30 pages or so, so I've been jumping between a few books, including these two:

I just picked up The Fourth Turning yesterday, so I can't comment extensively on it. It has been an interesting read so far. Considering that the authors frequently equivocate, never really claiming that their finds are an exact science, I haven't found much to dispute with. I'm sure that will come later in the book though. Emma Goldman's collection of essays is a fun read. The writing style could be likened to that of a street-corner rant.