I should have known, considering how much I loved Siddhartha, that I would also love this book. (I may also have a soft spot for the coming-of-age/selI should have known, considering how much I loved Siddhartha, that I would also love this book. (I may also have a soft spot for the coming-of-age/self realization genre). There are some magnificent quotes to be found in this book, and powerful themes. I was more than a little shocked when Sinclair’s love interest in the book seemed to be Frau Eva rather than Demian, unless that final kiss they shared on behalf of Frau Eva was only a play of keeping up societal appearances. I realize this book was written a little more than a century ago and that it might have been impossible for Herman Hesse even to write about a homosexual character, perhaps? It seemed to be intimated when he was painting Beatrice that the figure of his dreams was at the very least androgynous if not masculine… But I admit I am admittedly very poor at attempting to decipher literary meanings.
At any rate, I sympathize with Emil Sinclair’s struggle to discover himself, having grown up outside the confines of organized religion, then attempting to seek fellowship within it in young adulthood, and then being disgusted by what I found, spurning it again after finding religion to be vehicle for all manner of abuses, bigotry, and jingoism. Even at 36, I still don’t think I’ve ‘discovered’ myself as successfully as Emil Sinclair has in his young life. Maybe I just haven’t read the right things, or don’t have enough strength of will, maybe I never had the right mentors. Perhaps I’m more of a Pistorius or even a Knauer.
I think this was the most striking quote of the novel, and one thorn which will probably continue to dog mankind for the rest of time - “They know exactly how many ounces of powder it takes to kill a man but they don’t know how to pray to God, they don’t even know how to be happy for a single contented hour.” ...more
A towering work. Focusing primarily on Italy and Germany, Paxton carefully and methodically analyzes the history and components of fascist movements aA towering work. Focusing primarily on Italy and Germany, Paxton carefully and methodically analyzes the history and components of fascist movements and their compromises made to come to power (or not, in several other fascist movements the author explores). It is well-researched, and I’m sure that I will point other people in its direction in the future. I particularly appreciated the author’s explanation of how fascism was most likely to arise in the era of mass politics, in countries with failing or failed democracies, and countries with failed institutions. It was both troubling and fascinating. I hadn’t realized the movement to mass franchise was such a tumultuous time, which was enlightening. I’ll have to read more about early mass politics, particularly in Europe and the United States....more
The fact that these essays resonated with me so strongly today shows we haven’t yet emerged successfully from the ‘wager of our generation’ of libertyThe fact that these essays resonated with me so strongly today shows we haven’t yet emerged successfully from the ‘wager of our generation’ of liberty versus nihilism of which Camus speaks after World War Two.
I very nearly docked a star because the essays regarding Algeria were so hypocritical coming after his towering ‘Defense of Freedom’ essays, Camus was clearly far too close to the situation as a French-Algerian to see the situation without bias. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It seems shocking that he could be so naïve in that regard, considering how clearly he saw other issues, but, who knows?...more
I made it to 40%, and very uncharacteristically, decided to give up. It is very esoteric. I’m not gaining anything from it. At this point I am just foI made it to 40%, and very uncharacteristically, decided to give up. It is very esoteric. I’m not gaining anything from it. At this point I am just forcing myself to read it. Considering I started it in early October of last year I suppose I should have read the writing on the wall. Transitioning from the ‘theory’ to the actual prayers themselves and their explanations was the final straw, so to speak. I simply can’t comprehend it....more
A Goodreads friend, Blackoxford, suggested several alternate titles for this book. I thought I would include my favorite in the review, because I thinA Goodreads friend, Blackoxford, suggested several alternate titles for this book. I thought I would include my favorite in the review, because I think this book is probably unfairly judged for prognosticating the future when the vast majority (perhaps the first 70%) focuses on past thought and current trends.
His proposed alternate title: The Vital Uncertainty: We can have meaning or power in life but not both together.
Homo Deus was a truly fascinating book which looks at current trends in all aspects of human society, but (perhaps, it is very broad) focusing on he realm of consciousness, free will versus algorithms, philosophy, humanism, the implications and ethical considerations of existing, cutting edge, and future technology, and so very much more. I would have to say that despite the title of the book, it mainly examines the past and present, such as the ways things changed in the past to demonstrate how our current modes of thought might change in the future, and the evolution of humanism and classical liberalism (to separate it from America’s bastardization of the term).
It is probably the most ‘interesting’ book in regards to philosophy and human nature I have read thus far in 2018. It also makes me really want to check out the other works by this author....more
This very well may be the most difficult to understand book I have ever read, thanks in part to antiquated language, not Enter my crude understanding:
This very well may be the most difficult to understand book I have ever read, thanks in part to antiquated language, not having read Hobbes’ prior work, upon which a large portion of Leviathan is based, and a general bafflement at the immense explanation of terms and Hobbes’ immense, IMMENSE, dense, and convoluted use of theology and the Bible to attempt to rationalize (or, in the precise language of the book, ratiocinate) his view of sovereign power as being of higher authority than the divine. Hobbes is of the opinion that, in his mind, since the Kingdom of God is yet to come, we are bound by the laws of a (divinely appointed?) sovereign, using an extensively drawn out view that Moses was the first ‘civil sovereign.’ Even if the Sovereign is unjust, or forces one to renounce God, it doesn’t really matter (AND the Sovereign, being sovereign, is NEVER unjust), because as Hobbes points out time and time again, slaves are to be obedient to their masters and subjects to their sovereign. God will sort it out in the end, as He can see into the hearts of men.
Hobbes despises ecclesiastical power, and in particular, the Roman Catholic Church. Given the time period and the way the church exerted power at the time, I can hardly blame him. Ironically, this causes him to argue in favor of the idea of the absolute power of the Sovereign and the separation of Church and State power, as he has seen the abuse of the Church’s power firsthand (and unsurprisingly branded a heretic). I guess one of the fathers of secularism and western enlightenment just couldn’t get a break :)
I’m glad I read it, but I wouldn’t really recommend it for light reading. My interest lay into the relationship between the drafting of the United States constitution and the work of Thomas Hobbes. I can certainly see many direct sources of inspiration in the first half of the book. I can only imagine the horror some might experience if they knew that Hobbes’ self-interested and materialist commonwealth was thoroughly secular in nature.
Finally, if you really want a better chance of understanding Leviathan, make sure to read Hobbes’ prior work, because you will be expected to be intimately familiar with it....more
There is a reason this book is still read today, and though it might not all apply today, a nation State would be foolish not to heed its warnings or There is a reason this book is still read today, and though it might not all apply today, a nation State would be foolish not to heed its warnings or ignore its counsel to know one’s enemy as you know yourself (and much more)....more
Hard to believe a man in his twenties could write such a philosophical and brilliant collection of stories about the questions raised by artificial inHard to believe a man in his twenties could write such a philosophical and brilliant collection of stories about the questions raised by artificial intelligence. Brilliant is the only way to describe it....more
I don't think it is Clarke's best work (I've only read two other novels written by him), but it was enjoyable. It left too many loose ends for my likiI don't think it is Clarke's best work (I've only read two other novels written by him), but it was enjoyable. It left too many loose ends for my liking, but from the afterword he explained that it was a short story turned novel, so perhaps he never really had time to flesh it out. ...more
I quite enjoyed this discussion on evil and different perspectives on it, and there were quite a lot of things that I will definitely revisit at a latI quite enjoyed this discussion on evil and different perspectives on it, and there were quite a lot of things that I will definitely revisit at a later date. I also appreciated the inclusion of liberal and conservative perspectives on evil, and the weaknesses of each. I think my favorite part of the book was the analysis of Irish literature, which was fascinating and gave me plenty of other books I would like to read. His grasp and understanding of philosophy and its applications and pitfalls in regards to the topic was also excellent. I had only two quibbles with the books, the first being that I felt Evil in Modern Thought by Neiman was a much deeper analysis, more scholarly, and more thorough, and second, that, like Neiman's work, it came from a wholly Western perspective; you won't find any thinkers or products of non-Euopean thinkers in either volume. ...more
I really enjoyed this one. It isn’t quite Albert Camus, but Albert Camus didn’t have to experience the horror of the concentration camps, either. I imI really enjoyed this one. It isn’t quite Albert Camus, but Albert Camus didn’t have to experience the horror of the concentration camps, either. I imagine that if he had, he would have written a similar book about the experience. I’m not sure if I would have been able to give this book such a favorable rating even a year or two earlier, were I earlier in my own battle with overcoming developmental trauma... but that’s an entirely different story.
There were a couple moments that I’m sure will stick with me for a long time. At one point, Frankl points to the absurdity of asking the question “What is the meaning of life?” By comparing it to asking the question “What is the best move in a game of chess?” Of course, the question about chess is nonsensical, it all depends on the specific circumstance, and your opponent’s personality and temperament. And just like that, the question of the meaning of life is shown to be patently ridiculous (at least to me). I think that is why, after reading a nontrivial amount of theology and philosophy, that existentialism appeals to me the most. Life IS absurd and meaningless, unless you yourself assign it meaning. That IS the only meaning, that which you give it.
The other magnificent adapted quote I’ll use goes something like this: “This uniqueness and singleness which distinguishes each individual and gives a meaning to their existence has a bearing on creative work as much as it does on human love. When the impossibility of replacing a human being is realized, it allows the responsibility which one has for their existence and its continuance to appear in all its magnitude. An individual who becomes conscious of the responsibility that they bear to a human being that affectionately waits for them or to an unfinished work will never be able to throw away their life. They know the ‘why’ for their existence and will be able to bear almost any ‘how.’” Now that is truly marvelous prose right there. Marvelous stuff, Mr. Frankl, I adore it. Majestic.
So why only four stars? Well, I didn’t really care for the discourse on logotherapy all that much. Perhaps it has held up well, I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist. But if this were only a memoir or purely an existentialist work, it would easily be five star material.
A monumental work on the Moral Foundations theory, and immensely practical in helping you understand precisely why ‘Good people are divided by politicA monumental work on the Moral Foundations theory, and immensely practical in helping you understand precisely why ‘Good people are divided by politics and religion.’ But, and this is a very big BUT here... You must have a mind that is open enough, and be comfortable enough with your own belief structure not to dismiss the arguments made by the author out of hand simply because they may be uncomfortable, challenge your preconceived notions, or add nuance to those you have come to perceive as political ‘enemies.’ (And therein lies much of the problem of where we are today, as of this review, December 23, 2018)....more
I'm just going to stream of consciousness my uneducated thoughts on this book. I get the sense from reading several of Dostoevsky's works that he is aI'm just going to stream of consciousness my uneducated thoughts on this book. I get the sense from reading several of Dostoevsky's works that he is a deeply spiritual man, but, like Tolstoy, struggles with that faith because the world seems to force one to commit acts of selfishness and evil to 'get ahead.' So, he writes both The Idiot and Crime and Punishment, which seem almost diametrically opposed to each other. Raskolnikov is a scheming, ends justify the means because he believes he is capable of 'so much more' than everyone else but is stymied by his life circumstances, and feels he is justified in his actions, no matter how vile, to advance his goals. Prince Myshkin is an utterly guileless, honest-to-a-fault, earnest gentleman who is absolutely bound by his word. He is Dostoevsky's idealized Christian man; and Dostoevsky is making the point that a man who is entirely motivated by his faith would be perceived as childlike, or as an adult, an idiot. Dostoevsky places this character in the conniving and cunning world of the Russian aristocracy, where he becomes a peculiar figure that everyone thinks is trying to play a long-con on them; they each in turn project their own personalities upon Prince Myshkin, because surely no one could be as foolish or as guileless as Prince Myshkin seems... yet he is. And Dostoevsky holds Myshkin to this ideal throughout the book, and shows that despite Prince Myshkin's best intentions, ultimately, he is unable to save anyone from ruining themselves, and is, in fact, ruined himself.
Another magnificent piece of literature by a master of the written word, reviewed by someone who cannot attempt to do justice to the nuance of the book, and quite possibly missed the point. ...more
I’m not going to do this book justice in this review. It demands to be read if you ever ponder the nature of evil, human nature, and the coercive poweI’m not going to do this book justice in this review. It demands to be read if you ever ponder the nature of evil, human nature, and the coercive powers that go into controlling (or losing control of violence).
With that said.... Despite the very disturbing subject matter, this book was a smorgasbord of information on the aversion of humanity to take human life, the history of combat including some anthropology, a sociological lesson about violence, a huge dose of psychology into psychiatric and physical trauma caused by taking human life, and description of ways in which warlords, gangs, and governments have attempted and succeeded to overcome this inborn aversion to killing with remarkable results, but often catastrophic psychiatric results on the soldiers returning from conflicts. A monumental study on violence and why it has been perpetrated in many, many forms. Extremely persuasive from a veteran who became a professor at West Point.
Well, after reading it a second time as a healthcare worker in a time of a pandemic, I’m inclined to say this book is maybe just about an unending, grWell, after reading it a second time as a healthcare worker in a time of a pandemic, I’m inclined to say this book is maybe just about an unending, grinding, soul-destroying plague, where you have to keep plodding along despite how much the world might try to grind you down and despite how unprepared everyone is. The only complaint I have, was that everyone in Camus’ version seemed so eminently reasonable, and as it turns out, real people have been anything but reasonable. Three cheers for trying to find meaning in absurdity, because that’s all there is, folks.
Initial review, from before the Coronavirus pandemic, back sometime when I was in college: I forgot to write a review of this at the time, which was a major oversight. Now I'm going off of my spotty memory, which does not always serve me well. Camus is, of course, an existentialist, and this is a magnificent existentialist novel. I think it is important to set Camus in his time period and take into account that Camus was in essence capturing the banality of evil: metaphysical, natural, or moral, in The Plague; for the plague is not merely a plague, it is a metaphor for the Nazi regime and its horrific invention of industrialized/bureaucratized killing that philosophically succeeded in divorcing intention from evil, its attempt to decrease malice in murder (through gas chambers) to try and make genocide 'palatable' to the executioners, and forcing the victims to be complicit in their crimes. These factors dealt a major blow to the previous philosophy of evil by blurring the boundaries of modern jurisprudence, which (wrongly or not) tends to demands intention, will, and malice for us to try and keep evil definable and clear-cut, like Marquis De Sade's villains. Camus and his work, The Plague, blur these lines, and the fight versus the Nazis/Plague and the Resistance/Doctor Rieux may be a crude instrument by exploiting horrific tragedy to exemplify stoicism and bravery continuing despite Weltschmerz that existentialism demands... but I think it is brilliant nonetheless....more