Conundrum
A very interesting journey of the main character. It is a journey not only in space but also a journey through lost memories and lost pieces of himself. At the start the main character doesn't know much about himself, but he tends to think of himself as a “good person”. But what if he's not? Doubts encroach with each bundle of memories and personality he discovers...
A very gritty atmosphere, lots of potential for the development of the story and the world, and a very interesting concept associated with the main protagonist.
It is very cool to hear the author himself narrating the book! Michael R. Fletcher did a wonderful job at that!
This is an uneven book. A lot of the times it felt really sluggish to go through. However, from time to time there was an insightful statement that resonated with me. This is why I kept going.
In this book, Pessoa's alter-ego is describing his pessimistic view on the world. He author puts useless dreaming above reality, as the real is never perfect, while dreams can be.
It's an OK book about addiction. There is sketch of an overview of the reward system in the brain. But one feels there are many questions that aren't answered in the book, such as why most people do not get addicted to anything? Near the end, there is a hint towards answering this question, where the author writes about the surrounding context of the person (since we're not brains in vats, but embodied organisms embedded in the environment and various social situations). Still, the book leaves a lot unanswered.
The question is not “how to live morally?” but “is it even possible to live morally?”
The book is quite an achievement. Cabrera introduces his pessimistic view of humans on, what he calls, a structural ontological level. This means that the negative judgment on human beings is not made merely by looking at particular things that happen to people while they're alive, but by analyzing the very structure of human existence. Human life is terminal as it starts to decay at the moment it's being created and it inevitably rushes towards death. All life is subject to discomfort (psychological, physical, and moral), pain, and various forms of aggression from and manipulation by others. Humans have to create some positive values to cope with their situation, thus reacting to and hiding the badness of life. This means that on the structural level, human life is without positive value. All positive value is created by humans in their lived lives.
The second thick branch of the argument is that humans are morally impeded. Because humans live in societies and because every one has some plans and goals that they have to strive towards, they will inevitably come into conflict with other humans. Thus, putting their own interests above the interests of others. Hence, moral life is impossible. By living, we are tragically forced to be immoral.
Cabrera has interesting takes on “evil”, “freedom”, education, abortion, and even suicide. All of this is viewed from the perspective of his negative ethics — an ethics that does not affirm life, but critiques it.
There are some issues with the book. A lot of the legwork is done by Cabrera viewing all kinds of manipulation as morally wrong. Why that is is not entirely clear. Cabrera introduces the concept of Minimal Ethical Articulation (MEA), which is a demand to take the interests of others into consideration and balancing them with our own interests. However, if that is so, then one could easily argue that we are moral more often than not, even if we come into conflict with projects of other people, insofar as we take their interests seriously and make our decisions morally and rationally. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
It should be noted that the English translation is less than half of the original book in Portuguese. So it is possible that certain aspects are made even clearer in the original.
Also, there is a lot of repetition of basic claims, particularly those related to the terminal structure of human life.
In all, I enjoyed reading the book and being exposed to not only the ideas themselves but also to the way the topics of freedom and pessimism were handles — in a structural and radical manner.
C.S. Lewis tries to make a grand case for the contradictory nature of naturalism (the view that everything has material causes), existence of “small miracles” (human rationality), existence of “grand miracles” (resurrection of Jesus Christ), and the existence of God himself. This is a gigantic task!
One of the more interesting things in the book is Lewis' argument against naturalism. The arguments states that if we assume naturalism and say that our thoughts are determined by natural events (like movements of atoms), then our thoughts are not rational. Hence, we would have no basis in believing in naturalism. The claim is bold. But I don't find the argument very clear or compelling.
The above allows Lewis' to state that there is at least one supernatural thing that we all have a daily experience of — our rationality or free will. And if there is one supernatural type of things, then miracles are not ridiculous, but something more “normal”. This is supposed to be the basis for the defense of the bigger miracles.
Unfortunately, Lewis' defense of the biggest miracles of Christianity (virgin birth, resurrection of Lazarus, resurrection of Jesus Christ) are not as well put. They seem to lack originality, and instead look a lot like what we would expect from any other apologist.
One particularly interesting thing, that I see is gaining traction today, is Lewis' acceptance of very crude understanding of various phenomena as valid or in some sense “true”. The author gives an example, where a child thinks that poison is a “horrid red thing”. Even though the child is wrong, strictly speaking, treating “horrid red things” as poisonous is a crude approximation that “does the job” or is “good enough” for the time being and for the intellectual capacities of the child. This allows Lewis to say that when some Christians have crude beliefs (for example, that Jesus Christ went to God the Father by literally floating to the sky), their beliefs are also valuable, even though Jesus' ascension is something that most likely is very complicated and may be beyond our understanding. Lewis makes an explicit distinction between an everyday thinking or “image” on the one hand and the critical thinking. We could disprove a lot of the things from the Bible when the images are understood literally, but it wouldn't disprove the Bible because — as Lewis maintains — these images server the purpose of transmitting profound knowledge that can be gleaned through critical thinking. In a sense, Lewis makes the case that the Bible should be understood as composed of metaphors, stories, myths, and images. The difficulty is, of course, in trying to figure out what the metaphors are actually about.
Of course, Lewis claims that Christianity is something entirely different than merely “religion”, but it should be expected from any believe for him to treat his religion as the best and the true one.
It was an interesting read, but some of the arguments aren't fleshed sufficiently to the point of seeming as if they are not fully closed, as if there was supposed to be some final statement that would do away with the possibility of an alternative explanation or conclusion.
One of the most important books in philosophy. Nāgārjuna provides a reasonable way of navigating our map of reality: do not think the objects exist ultimately as they are and have essences, but also do not think there are no objects. Rather, take the middle way and consider phenomena as conventional — very useful constructions of the mind.
This analysis applies to everything: fire, wood, chair, self, even to samsara and nirvana, and even to the very conception of the middle way!
Garfield does a wonderful job not only in translating the text from Sanskrit and Tibetan, but also explaining the reasoning in a way that is approachable to a reader from outside the Indian philosophical tradition. He brought so much value to the text.
The book doesn't answer all the questions one might have. For example, we would like to have a way to distinguish legitimate constructions (conventional things), like atoms, chairs, scissors, etc. from illegitimate constructions, like élan vital, flogiston, ether, or various gods and ghosts. In short, we won't find a suggestion on how to, what we would today conceptualize as, differentiate between science and pseudoscience.
Nāgārjuna's work fits very well with that of Kant and, more recently, of Searle, where various parts of our experienced world are considered to be our constructions that we project to the outside.
This book is unreadable. It stands out from all the other “A Very Short Introduction” books. You are bombarded with long and difficult names of people, which you cannot remember. The level of historical detail is way too deep. I would expect to learn about explanation of various doctrines, practices, philosophical musings, and the like. What I got was a historical account of the development of Buddhism in Tibet and its link to Buddhist schools from Nepal, China, India. I stopped reading it after 1/3 of the book. Not recommended.
Power corrupts and a corrupted mind becomes more powerful. You ask if there is a ruler—a King, an Emperor, a Governor, a Lord—who is sane? I think the answer clear.
— Hoffnungslos
What a read! The book is great on many levels. The spin on fantasy and “magic” is very novel, very creative. When the magic is not in your total control and it consumes you as you gain more power, you meet many interesting dilemmas along the way — get more powerful, but lose yourself?
Power and manipulation are the lead motifs, which makes interactions between main characters feel fresh. We're not seeing the same story of good guys fighting the bad guys. No. We're seeing bad guys trying to manipulate each other to achieve their own ends. They are sincere, even if they hide some other feelings they feel towards each other.
The dialogues feel very organic and real. This is so good!
At times, the book gets beyond gritty and into some gruesome territory, which didn't really add much value and many may find it off-putting.
German names are sometimes difficult to remember. But naming of various “casts” of lunatics with German names turned out really cool.
I read an audiobook version narrated by Paul Woodson. This was a stellar performance! He brought all the characters to life.
A good book, overall. It goes through various Hindu and Buddhist schools, showing the differences between them. However, I think I would prefer less detail (less schools of Hinduism and Buddhism) for wider coverage (including Jainism). It would be better to go through a wider range of main philosophico-religious branches. Readers would then be able to pursue select main schools that interest them.
Merged review:
A good book, overall. It goes through various Hindu and Buddhist schools, showing the differences between them. However, I think I would prefer less detail (less schools of Hinduism and Buddhism) for wider coverage (including Jainism). It would be better to go through a wider range of main philosophico-religious branches. Readers would then be able to pursue select main schools that interest them.
A very pleasant and relaxing read. The author has a great style of narration. The characters feel real and alive, organic. Creativity reached levels of insanity!
However, the lack of some visible overarching story makes it somewhat difficult to develop strong interest.
Nigel Planer is an excellent narrator!
A very pleasant and relaxing read. I enjoyed the two different punk approaches (steampunk and biopunk) in one world. The reimagining of the start of the first world war is a great idea to ground the plot.
The story is not very complicated. The characters are clearly outlined. I would like to read more descriptions of the machines and bio fabrications, though.
Notes on the audiobook. I listened to the audiobook narrated by Alan Cumming and it was a splendid performance! The narrator did a stellar job with the accents (Germanic, normal English, and one additional from Great Britain). It added so much to the atmosphere of the book. Wonderful!
This is a very good book. A nice, very thorough presentation of Nietzsche's philosophy. After reading it, I feel like I have a much better grasp of Nietzsche not only as a whole but I'm also more aware how his philosophy changed throughout his life (we can say it went through stages). Robert Wicks does a decent job not only in presenting the philosophy but also in making you want to read the primary works themselves.
Pretty decent book. There is no over explaining things. You read mostly about what's happening at the moment, which is nice. The overall story is not that engaging, but there are many ideas that were crucial and went into other sci-fi works, such as “matrix” (The Matrix movies series), “construct” (Altered Carbon), “going on ice” (Altered Carbon, The Demolition Man), “ghost” (Ghost in the Shell manga and anime), humans being remade into AI, merging with the cyberworld/matrix (Ghost in the Shell), and others. Cool ideas. And this is the most interesting thing about the book, not the story, but how it influenced sci-fi by pushing cyberpunk.
It makes you think. A great addition to Lao Tsu's Dao De Ching. This book is much longer, the author takes space to expand on all the interesting thoughts. This makes the points come across very clearly. It's a pleasant read.
Merged review:
It makes you think. A great addition to Lao Tsu's Dao De Ching. This book is much longer, the author takes space to expand on all the interesting thoughts. This makes the points come across very clearly. It's a pleasant read.
The book has an interesting premise. Some of the ideas in the book are really cool. At one time, shivers went through my back; things got spooky! However, the major drawback is the fact that the author tells too much (through the narrator or some character that explains what's going on), without showing it. So it's not a great book. The flaw makes it difficult to fully get lost in the plot, it is so glaring. But I would recommend it to sci-fi fans.
Overall, this was a good read. However, I often found myself defocusing, as Darwin was shooting one example after another. After many such examples, I couldn't really care reading about so many more of them. The book would have worked great with only a selected number of examples of sexual selection. The reading experience would be much more smooth.
The book presents two things in one book. The first is an exposition of sexual selection, which helps explain many perplexing things, previously unaccounted for by natural selection. When we see differences between the sexes, we usually find at least one of the two: members of one sex (usually males) fight between each other for access to females, and members of one sex (usually males) showing off their beauty and strength to attract the other sex (usually females).
The second part of the book shows the reasons we have for seeing homo sapiens as being a part of nature, evolved from some other animals. Darwin presents behaviors and mental faculties in other animals that we observe also in humans, which is a reason for thinking that our features evolved from those of other species. Animals reason, love, fear, are ferocious, just as people are.
The book is not without its issues. Darwin often talks about habits becoming so strong as to become heritable. It's not clear what he means. Is he suggesting that learned behaviors somehow becoming heritable in a lamarckian sense? Or is there a nuance, he doesn't clarify? Darwin seems to apply this notion to cultural customs, religions, and even morality.
It's also not clear how strongly he feels about race. On the one hand, in the Origin of Species he talks about “species” only as a useful and pragmatic term, so it would make sense “race” is the same. On the other hand, he points to seemingly strong differences (physical and psychological and cultural) between the races of man.
The idea that morality is a trait evolved on the basis of sociality is a very neat hypothesis that links psychology and evolution into a naturalistic account of morality.
Overall a great book. The first half of the book methodically presents the philosophy of Schopenhauer with the focus on The World as Will and Representation. The second half consists of a many topics related to Schopenhauer's philosophy, such as the influence he had on Wittgenstein, his connections with Buddhism, and various misconceptions people (including philosophers) have about his ideas.
Magee argues convincingly for his interpretation of the term “will”. This is important as you can find more than one sense of the term used in the literature. However, I would like him to respond directly to arguments made by others who defend other interpretation(s), for example Julian Young and Frederick C. Beiser.
The most confusing chapter was “Some Criticisms and Problems”. Reading it I was astonished as it seemed Magee forgot his own explanation from the previous chapters. I had the impression that I could counter these criticisms using Magee's own words! I'm still not sure what to make of it.
The most important points are repeated a few times, so that they are very salient. Magee writes in a very clear way, deliberately trying to get close to Schopenhauer's beautiful prose. And he often succeeds. Sometimes I forgot if I'm reading Magee's words or a quote by Schopenhauer.
A very good book indeed.
A magnificent experience!
The book seems to have been written following Arthur Schopenhauer's advice to focus on what's going inside, rather than focusing on external events. Yalom follows this advice to the “t.” Interestingly, the author frequently invokes Schopenhauer's phrase “fellow sufferer,” which makes me certain that he indeed follow the advice.
This is a complex exploration of the human condition. Two men, each struggling with his obsession, his despair that seems to be coming from nowhere. Who is the healer and who is the patient? Who — or what — is the enemy? How to be oneself? How to uncover the feelings and delusions that hold us back and that we hide from ourselves? Who controls whom? These are the motifs the books explores.
The format of the book is such that most of what's happening is presented as a dialog between people. Now, you might think that this must make the book boring as there's too much talking. No! The book is the opposite of boring. I felt I wanted to read just a bit more. Especially the last fragments were mesmerizing.
This is an interesting story, as there is some trickery on the parts of the characters, yet there is plenty of very direct honesty. And this directness works very well here.
We often find ourselves depressed or in the state of despair, not knowing what to do, how to live, what to make of ourselves. Sometimes, we reach for distractions or obsessions. But the story points to one possible avenue for exploration — understanding our choices and taking full responsibility for them. We make these choices and these choices make us. This is who we are. To be ourselves we have to embrace our choices with all their consequences.
The characters in the book are extremely intelligent and smart. Yet, they struggle with things we all struggle with — obsession, sexual desires, sense of the meaninglessness. They don't always tell the whole truth. And they are molested by thoughts and feelings they would rather do away with, but they don't know how to do that. They, like us, are human, all too human.
From Yalom's novels we get the overarching advice not to follow the teacher blindly. Take what you believe is right for you. Tune it for yourself. Take what works. But you have to give something out of yourself. The teacher cannot tell you what to do, because it wouldn't be your choice. You have to make it. You have to overcome the teacher to overcome yourself.
I was greatly moved at the end of the book. My eyes were properly moisturized by the story and the dynamic between the characters. It was a very endearing ending.
If we cast Schopenhauer's advice as a measure of how good a novel is, then this is a masterpiece.