Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Decided that after Nicholas Carr's The Shallows I would pick up what is in essence its predecessor from the early 90's, and how prescient it was.
The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
Dak
mentat
King Richard
Hello there
Bought this a few weeks ago, just been reading bits and pieces for entertainment purposes.
I have these two on the way though:
:danceboy:
I have these two on the way though:
:danceboy:
Dak
mentat
I have this book in waiting amongst school starting and wading through Human Action:
It's spook based conspiracy fiction.
It's spook based conspiracy fiction.
AllShallFall
Senior Member
unknown
fuck ftagn
Decided that after Nicholas Carr's The Shallows I would pick up what is in essence its predecessor from the early 90's, and how prescient it was.
I read this a few years ago and The End of Education. I found the latter to be much more interesting. Neil Postman can get a bit preachy at times
Einherjar86
Active Member
Getting into some good stuff lately, most recently Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. It's a really great, very accessible work of philosophy where Rorty basically adopts a literary-theory/criticism approach, and he makes great use of writers like Proust alongside thinkers such as Heidegger and Derrida.
His claim (which is a pragmatist/ironist one) is essentially that we must stop trying to square our own individual authenticity and being with an image of society (i.e. we should abandon the belief that a model of individual being can be successfully molded into, or grafted onto, a utopian model of society). In order to separate these pursuits, he says that individual thinkers/writers can be said to create their own personal understanding of their place in society and history, but that this understanding shouldn't be held up to the status of a universal character applicable to all human being(s). Individuals can create their own sublimity, but should not project it or (at worst) enforce it onto others; the latter, or course, often results in acts of atrocity perpetrated against specific marginalized groups (an example would be Heidegger's affiliation with and sympathy for the Nazis, culminating in him even selling out Husserl and championing Hitler for the removal of Jews from the universities).
Sublimity, thus, should be left to private creation; public politics and society, on the other hand, should be left un-sublimated, and should strive merely for a state of "decency." While self-creation, or private authenticity, can be a messy and complicated affair, we should avoid projecting this complexity into public life. Public politics, Rorty claims, should remain "untheoretical and simpleminded."
I'm not sure I agree with the claim, but it's certainly true that all historical efforts to combine individual self-creation with political utopianism have ended in, at best, failure; and at worst, ethical and physical disaster.
His claim (which is a pragmatist/ironist one) is essentially that we must stop trying to square our own individual authenticity and being with an image of society (i.e. we should abandon the belief that a model of individual being can be successfully molded into, or grafted onto, a utopian model of society). In order to separate these pursuits, he says that individual thinkers/writers can be said to create their own personal understanding of their place in society and history, but that this understanding shouldn't be held up to the status of a universal character applicable to all human being(s). Individuals can create their own sublimity, but should not project it or (at worst) enforce it onto others; the latter, or course, often results in acts of atrocity perpetrated against specific marginalized groups (an example would be Heidegger's affiliation with and sympathy for the Nazis, culminating in him even selling out Husserl and championing Hitler for the removal of Jews from the universities).
Sublimity, thus, should be left to private creation; public politics and society, on the other hand, should be left un-sublimated, and should strive merely for a state of "decency." While self-creation, or private authenticity, can be a messy and complicated affair, we should avoid projecting this complexity into public life. Public politics, Rorty claims, should remain "untheoretical and simpleminded."
I'm not sure I agree with the claim, but it's certainly true that all historical efforts to combine individual self-creation with political utopianism have ended in, at best, failure; and at worst, ethical and physical disaster.
Dak
mentat
"Decency". Well he's apparently torpedoed any method for discovering what that is (based on what you've said).
Einherjar86
Active Member
He defines it simply: a decent society is one that strives to avoid cruelty. He doesn't believe it needs to be much more complicated than that.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Indeed, there's an element of relativity to his theory; but a friend of mine described him as a "soft relativist." I think he tends toward individual, subjective truths, but also believes in the ability for liberal-minded groups to convene around common definitions for practical purposes.
I'm not sold on his ideas. I've never been riveted by him, just intrigued. This book is certainly an easy read, making it more interesting.
However, Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude was absolutely earth-shattering. A philosophical whopper of a book. I finished it about two weeks ago, and I've already started re-reading it.
I'm not sold on his ideas. I've never been riveted by him, just intrigued. This book is certainly an easy read, making it more interesting.
However, Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude was absolutely earth-shattering. A philosophical whopper of a book. I finished it about two weeks ago, and I've already started re-reading it.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I agree, it's simple, a "civilized" man who is cruel cannot be a good man.
I'm gonna give that Rorty book a go.
Dak
mentat
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 549
- 113
Currently reading Carrie. I can never decide how much I like Stephen King but this isn't bad so far.
MetalJen
New Metal Member
Read it many years ago and thought it was much better than the movie. Compared to many other novels by King it's probably more of a novella....or something like that.
Great classic novel:
Classic novel indeed! Should try to find the time to reread it soon.
Latest book I read was Erin Morgnestern's The Night Circus. Not sure it's a typical book for a guy to pick up (but then I'm a girl), but it was one I found while looking on Amazon to see what other people had bought after buying Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. I really liked that one so I was looking for something similar. As far as the two stories go they take place during the 19th century (Night Circus a little during the 20th century as well), some magic although in different ways. I have to say I liked Morgenstern's novel quite a lot. I also liked the idea with the black and white circus made up by magic (although people outside of it just think they're deceived into believing what they see is true but don't believe in magic as they do in Clarke's novel). And no, there are no spoilers here
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Dak
mentat
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 549
- 113
About to start reading A Clash of Kings after having read A Game of Thrones and watching the first season of the TV series. Definitely looking forward to it.
