

Oh, well. Kind of hard to admit that there were some pieces here that I liked, as I had only complaints about the poetry books I read before this. But I liked this one a bit. Still, the writing style was messy and inconsistent, and many pieces could've been social media posts. I wonder why the publisher decided to publish this. Anyway, here are the ones I liked:
But it's the "before you ask her what she will bring to the table, it's best to make sure it's sturdy" that made me chuckle. I'm not actively dating, but I think it would be funny to me if a guy asked me what I bring to the table and then I hit back with, "Is the table sturdy?" I really don't care about a man's finances, but he shouldn't ask me that question if he brings nothing to the table, even emotional sturdiness.
Oh, well. Kind of hard to admit that there were some pieces here that I liked, as I had only complaints about the poetry books I read before this. But I liked this one a bit. Still, the writing style was messy and inconsistent, and many pieces could've been social media posts. I wonder why the publisher decided to publish this. Anyway, here are the ones I liked:
But it's the "before you ask her what she will bring to the table, it's best to make sure it's sturdy" that made me chuckle. I'm not actively dating, but I think it would be funny to me if a guy asked me what I bring to the table and then I hit back with, "Is the table sturdy?" I really don't care about a man's finances, but he shouldn't ask me that question if he brings nothing to the table, even emotional sturdiness.

He didn't like everyone. He was full of resentment and liked to push people away, or scare people away. All he thought about was his work and himself, and he became rich by doing so. He didn't have a wife and children, so all his money was his; it became in the possession of others, others who weren't family or friends, only when he died because no one would inherit it.
They were happy to have his money, while his dead body was abandoned under his bed because he hadn't built good, loving relationships while he was alive. No one cared about him, only his money, because he himself hadn't cared about anyone else. He turned into that lifeless creature because of past circumstances, but the past is not a good place to be in.
That would be the summary of Scrooge's life story if he didn't realize the importance of relationships.
And if you felt that I was describing you, that would be your life in a nutshell if you kept focusing on the things that don't really matter in the long run.
He didn't like everyone. He was full of resentment and liked to push people away, or scare people away. All he thought about was his work and himself, and he became rich by doing so. He didn't have a wife and children, so all his money was his; it became in the possession of others, others who weren't family or friends, only when he died because no one would inherit it.
They were happy to have his money, while his dead body was abandoned under his bed because he hadn't built good, loving relationships while he was alive. No one cared about him, only his money, because he himself hadn't cared about anyone else. He turned into that lifeless creature because of past circumstances, but the past is not a good place to be in.
That would be the summary of Scrooge's life story if he didn't realize the importance of relationships.
And if you felt that I was describing you, that would be your life in a nutshell if you kept focusing on the things that don't really matter in the long run.

This edition by Penguin Classics has around 88% annotations, commentaries, etc. and the 12% is the actual manifesto. If you want to read just The Communist Manifesto, read a different edition.
Initially, I read and listened at the same time, but "bourgeoisie" was mentioned many, many times throughout the book, so I heard it many, many times, too. The narrator started to become like a broken record! I don't dislike the word, but its sound isn't something I hear on a regular basis. Anyway, I wonder, have those who use "communist" as an insult read The Communist Manifesto? Because, honestly, I kind of get the communists.
I don't think working hard alone will make a person rich because the hardest-working people I know are in the working class, as well as the middle class, and we all know that they aren't the richest. Instead, they are making their employers rich! That's unfair, right? Why are those who are doing the actual work not totally benefiting from their efforts???
However, does it mean that I agree that private property must be abolished? That capitalism is bad? Well, look at what I am doing in my life. I am considered a capitalist because I own a publication, a baby business that may not be profitable now but will be. And I don't want it to be taken away from me. I am not exploiting anyone, though!
Some highlights!
But honestly, "communism" has a negative tone to it whenever I hear it, but I don't think The Communist Manifesto has that negative tone?
This edition by Penguin Classics has around 88% annotations, commentaries, etc. and the 12% is the actual manifesto. If you want to read just The Communist Manifesto, read a different edition.
Initially, I read and listened at the same time, but "bourgeoisie" was mentioned many, many times throughout the book, so I heard it many, many times, too. The narrator started to become like a broken record! I don't dislike the word, but its sound isn't something I hear on a regular basis. Anyway, I wonder, have those who use "communist" as an insult read The Communist Manifesto? Because, honestly, I kind of get the communists.
I don't think working hard alone will make a person rich because the hardest-working people I know are in the working class, as well as the middle class, and we all know that they aren't the richest. Instead, they are making their employers rich! That's unfair, right? Why are those who are doing the actual work not totally benefiting from their efforts???
However, does it mean that I agree that private property must be abolished? That capitalism is bad? Well, look at what I am doing in my life. I am considered a capitalist because I own a publication, a baby business that may not be profitable now but will be. And I don't want it to be taken away from me. I am not exploiting anyone, though!
Some highlights!
But honestly, "communism" has a negative tone to it whenever I hear it, but I don't think The Communist Manifesto has that negative tone?

This was about change, comfort zones, and facing fears. I listened to the audiobook, but I didn't get sleepy because I enjoyed it! I could relate so much to the four mice. When I was a teenager up to 20-21, I wasn't stepping out of my comfort zone and felt entitled. I didn't want to do anything, was so protective of whatever I had, and when people tried to take it away from me, I would be mad and frustrated because, well, what made them think that they could take it away from me?
But I am 30, and I don't even think I deserve anything because I see it as entitlement. If you think that you deserve something, you think that you must have or receive it. I've let go of that mindset, that I must receive anything specific. I'm just grateful for whatever I receive, as I have received what I really wanted: peace.
Some ideas from the book stuck in my mind. Whenever we think of making a change, why do we think that it will lead to a negative outcome? And that's what scares us. Even when we think about trying something new, why do we think that it may be dangerous? Think of a maze. It is scary when you're in it because you don't know where to go, where a specific turn will lead you. But if you look at the bigger picture, like if you fly above the maze and see its entirety, there's no danger.
We fear the unknown because we overthink it. If we simply walk and enjoy the walk, our fear will lessen. And then when we face obstacles or make mistakes along the way, we think of them as ways to make ourselves stronger and more knowledgeable to overcome more challenging obstacles we have yet to face. Once we reach the end, once we exit the maze, we're better people.
When your cheese disappears, instead of asking or getting mad at who moved it, be willing to step out of your comfort zone, face your fears, and change yourself so that you can go on a journey that will take you to a place with better cheese.
This was about change, comfort zones, and facing fears. I listened to the audiobook, but I didn't get sleepy because I enjoyed it! I could relate so much to the four mice. When I was a teenager up to 20-21, I wasn't stepping out of my comfort zone and felt entitled. I didn't want to do anything, was so protective of whatever I had, and when people tried to take it away from me, I would be mad and frustrated because, well, what made them think that they could take it away from me?
But I am 30, and I don't even think I deserve anything because I see it as entitlement. If you think that you deserve something, you think that you must have or receive it. I've let go of that mindset, that I must receive anything specific. I'm just grateful for whatever I receive, as I have received what I really wanted: peace.
Some ideas from the book stuck in my mind. Whenever we think of making a change, why do we think that it will lead to a negative outcome? And that's what scares us. Even when we think about trying something new, why do we think that it may be dangerous? Think of a maze. It is scary when you're in it because you don't know where to go, where a specific turn will lead you. But if you look at the bigger picture, like if you fly above the maze and see its entirety, there's no danger.
We fear the unknown because we overthink it. If we simply walk and enjoy the walk, our fear will lessen. And then when we face obstacles or make mistakes along the way, we think of them as ways to make ourselves stronger and more knowledgeable to overcome more challenging obstacles we have yet to face. Once we reach the end, once we exit the maze, we're better people.
When your cheese disappears, instead of asking or getting mad at who moved it, be willing to step out of your comfort zone, face your fears, and change yourself so that you can go on a journey that will take you to a place with better cheese.
Updated a reading goal:
Read 25 books by December 30, 2026
Progress so far: 25 / 25 100%

I read and listened to this book at the same time, because listening alone was making me sleepy!
The author talked about his life in a concentration camp during the Second World War. What was the ultimate experience at the time? Suffering. We tend to think that if we are suffering, that is the end of us. We can't change our lives anymore because the external events are blocking our way. And if we keep believing that we can't change our lives anymore, our bodies start to believe it, too. And then we're dead. Turns out that there's a connection between mental hopelessness and physical deterioration.
But suffering is one way to find meaning in life, according to the book. We can't avoid it, and we shouldn't. Instead, while we can't control the external events we deal with, we can change our attitude toward them. If we think of suffering as life's way of making us stronger or more resilient, or even more open-minded and empathetic about other people's suffering, then we'll feel less pain as we go through it. The book revolved around the idea of suffering because, again, the author pulled learnings and insights from his experience during the war. But maybe you're wondering, "What is the ultimate meaning of life?"
There is no single meaning. You create your meaning depending on your situation and what life demands from you. Here's what the author said about it: "Questions about the meaning of life can never be answered by sweeping statements. 'Life' does not mean something vague, but something very real and concrete, just as life's tasks are also very real and concrete. They form man's destiny, which is different and unique for each individual. No man and no destiny can be compared with any other man or any other destiny. No situation repeats itself, and each situation calls for a different response."
Some highlights, because I didn't just listen to this book. I read it!
If you are in search of your life's meaning, you create that meaning.
I read and listened to this book at the same time, because listening alone was making me sleepy!
The author talked about his life in a concentration camp during the Second World War. What was the ultimate experience at the time? Suffering. We tend to think that if we are suffering, that is the end of us. We can't change our lives anymore because the external events are blocking our way. And if we keep believing that we can't change our lives anymore, our bodies start to believe it, too. And then we're dead. Turns out that there's a connection between mental hopelessness and physical deterioration.
But suffering is one way to find meaning in life, according to the book. We can't avoid it, and we shouldn't. Instead, while we can't control the external events we deal with, we can change our attitude toward them. If we think of suffering as life's way of making us stronger or more resilient, or even more open-minded and empathetic about other people's suffering, then we'll feel less pain as we go through it. The book revolved around the idea of suffering because, again, the author pulled learnings and insights from his experience during the war. But maybe you're wondering, "What is the ultimate meaning of life?"
There is no single meaning. You create your meaning depending on your situation and what life demands from you. Here's what the author said about it: "Questions about the meaning of life can never be answered by sweeping statements. 'Life' does not mean something vague, but something very real and concrete, just as life's tasks are also very real and concrete. They form man's destiny, which is different and unique for each individual. No man and no destiny can be compared with any other man or any other destiny. No situation repeats itself, and each situation calls for a different response."
Some highlights, because I didn't just listen to this book. I read it!
If you are in search of your life's meaning, you create that meaning.

Out of all the books I read so far this year, this was the only one I read until the end. The real end: acknowledgements, about the author, etc. Gosh. Even as I type this, I can't describe what I feel because it's a mixture of different feelings, but I am happy. And I feel the love between Psyche and Eros. I am smiling lol. I am also amazed that this was the author's debut novel. Well-written.
Anyway, I'll be honest: When I was close to the end, I was a little disappointed that they would end up together. But when I actually reached the end, I felt happy for them. My bitterness briefly visited me. I am still in search of an unhappy ending, as I can't relate to happy endings. There was a specific part similar to East of the Sun, West of the Moon, and it gave me chills while reading that part.
I didn't expect that there would be highlight-ables, but there were. I'll emphasize this one: "Truly great lovers rarely make their way into the public eye. They are too busy with one another." I want a relationship that isn't public because we are busy with one another. We satisfy each other, especially emotionally, and therefore don't need external validation.
Below are some more highlights, and I highlighted these because of how they made me feel:
Should I read a novel about Narcissus and Echo? Let me see if I can find one. Update: I found one!
Out of all the books I read so far this year, this was the only one I read until the end. The real end: acknowledgements, about the author, etc. Gosh. Even as I type this, I can't describe what I feel because it's a mixture of different feelings, but I am happy. And I feel the love between Psyche and Eros. I am smiling lol. I am also amazed that this was the author's debut novel. Well-written.
Anyway, I'll be honest: When I was close to the end, I was a little disappointed that they would end up together. But when I actually reached the end, I felt happy for them. My bitterness briefly visited me. I am still in search of an unhappy ending, as I can't relate to happy endings. There was a specific part similar to East of the Sun, West of the Moon, and it gave me chills while reading that part.
I didn't expect that there would be highlight-ables, but there were. I'll emphasize this one: "Truly great lovers rarely make their way into the public eye. They are too busy with one another." I want a relationship that isn't public because we are busy with one another. We satisfy each other, especially emotionally, and therefore don't need external validation.
Below are some more highlights, and I highlighted these because of how they made me feel:
Should I read a novel about Narcissus and Echo? Let me see if I can find one. Update: I found one!

Added to listRereadwith 2 books.

I first read Meditations over two years ago, if I remember correctly. But I think that the one I read back then was a shorter edition and much easier to understand. It doesn't matter.
So, he mentioned many times that we keep worrying about what other people think of us, and we shouldn't be. But he also mentioned that we shouldn't go against our nature. Now, here's the thing: Marcus Aurelius existed many centuries ago, and people-pleasing was already an "issue" at the time. If people back then and people now share a similar trait (in this case, people-pleasing), is it sensible to say that "people-pleasing" is part of human nature? If so, then why is it an issue? Why go against it?
I see "human nature" as something that exists in all people regardless of time. I mean, it existed in the Neanderthals and ancient Greeks, and it exists in myself and everyone at this time. If people back then were people-pleasers and people today are people-pleasers, is "people-pleasing" part of human nature? Then why avoid it, or fix it? In many philosophies, why does "human nature" oftentimes refer only to positive human nature, and then anything negative is bad and must be fixed?
But what is positive, and what is negative? Those are big questions in philosophy, too! And I am not questioning philosophers. I am just wondering! Some highlights below:
Stoicism is my favorite ISM in the social sciences because life is tough, but we must be tougher!
I first read Meditations over two years ago, if I remember correctly. But I think that the one I read back then was a shorter edition and much easier to understand. It doesn't matter.
So, he mentioned many times that we keep worrying about what other people think of us, and we shouldn't be. But he also mentioned that we shouldn't go against our nature. Now, here's the thing: Marcus Aurelius existed many centuries ago, and people-pleasing was already an "issue" at the time. If people back then and people now share a similar trait (in this case, people-pleasing), is it sensible to say that "people-pleasing" is part of human nature? If so, then why is it an issue? Why go against it?
I see "human nature" as something that exists in all people regardless of time. I mean, it existed in the Neanderthals and ancient Greeks, and it exists in myself and everyone at this time. If people back then were people-pleasers and people today are people-pleasers, is "people-pleasing" part of human nature? Then why avoid it, or fix it? In many philosophies, why does "human nature" oftentimes refer only to positive human nature, and then anything negative is bad and must be fixed?
But what is positive, and what is negative? Those are big questions in philosophy, too! And I am not questioning philosophers. I am just wondering! Some highlights below:
Stoicism is my favorite ISM in the social sciences because life is tough, but we must be tougher!

I read the book before I even cared to know when it was published, and it was published many years before I was born. However, I learned a lot lot lot from this, and there are specific systems and documents I want to create for Sociopoliticool that I think will help, as they will provide a good foundation for the plans I'll implement in the future. I have a business plan, but I realized how incomplete it is. Good thing, I have a one-month break from graduate school, so there's a great amount of energy to get those done properly.
That's all I want to say (but I have a lot to do). Here are some highlights:
I just remembered that the most important thing I learned is how to disconnect from my business. I shouldn't work depending on my mood but instead ask myself every single morning, "What does Sociopoliticool need from me today?" And then give it what it needs, regardless of what I feel.
I read the book before I even cared to know when it was published, and it was published many years before I was born. However, I learned a lot lot lot from this, and there are specific systems and documents I want to create for Sociopoliticool that I think will help, as they will provide a good foundation for the plans I'll implement in the future. I have a business plan, but I realized how incomplete it is. Good thing, I have a one-month break from graduate school, so there's a great amount of energy to get those done properly.
That's all I want to say (but I have a lot to do). Here are some highlights:
I just remembered that the most important thing I learned is how to disconnect from my business. I shouldn't work depending on my mood but instead ask myself every single morning, "What does Sociopoliticool need from me today?" And then give it what it needs, regardless of what I feel.

Thomas More basically described what he thought was the ideal society in a more interesting way than the others who did the same in his time. But the particulars that stuck in my mind were kind of related to gender roles: In Utopia, the husband was the stable entity in the household, and his wife and his children were considered his dependents. Women could get married at 18, but men at 22. Sex was prohibited outside of marriage to increase the number of people who would marry, because they needed it to have access to sex.
How did people know about sex, though? I just thought of that question while reading. How can science explain how human beings function? Okay, there are chemicals and hormones in the body that make humans think or behave a certain way, but why do they have certain functions, and who created them in the first place? I think St. Thomas Aquinas makes more sense than scientists in terms of the origin of humans. And that is irrelevant to Utopia, but Utopia made me think about that.
Like, how did the first humans know about sex? By doing it, of course. But then, why did they even think of doing that? What made the first man think of putting it inside a woman? Because that's the only way to discover that sex leads to pleasure and pregnancy, right? Even if we say that humans evolved from apes, how did apes know about sex? And who created apes? In science, the universe is the origin of the world. Who created the universe?
I wish he included pictures of the Utopia, or did he in other editions? It is available online, but I'm not sure if that was how Thomas More envisioned it.
Thomas More basically described what he thought was the ideal society in a more interesting way than the others who did the same in his time. But the particulars that stuck in my mind were kind of related to gender roles: In Utopia, the husband was the stable entity in the household, and his wife and his children were considered his dependents. Women could get married at 18, but men at 22. Sex was prohibited outside of marriage to increase the number of people who would marry, because they needed it to have access to sex.
How did people know about sex, though? I just thought of that question while reading. How can science explain how human beings function? Okay, there are chemicals and hormones in the body that make humans think or behave a certain way, but why do they have certain functions, and who created them in the first place? I think St. Thomas Aquinas makes more sense than scientists in terms of the origin of humans. And that is irrelevant to Utopia, but Utopia made me think about that.
Like, how did the first humans know about sex? By doing it, of course. But then, why did they even think of doing that? What made the first man think of putting it inside a woman? Because that's the only way to discover that sex leads to pleasure and pregnancy, right? Even if we say that humans evolved from apes, how did apes know about sex? And who created apes? In science, the universe is the origin of the world. Who created the universe?
I wish he included pictures of the Utopia, or did he in other editions? It is available online, but I'm not sure if that was how Thomas More envisioned it.
Updated a reading goal:
Read 25 books by December 30, 2026
Progress so far: 19 / 25 76%

This is about huge start-ups that need investors, so not applicable to me. I was able to finish this quickly because I skipped many parts, specifically those about venture capitalists, employee management, and also technology. I bootstrapped Sociopoliticool and don't have any plan to seek investors or have a co-founder. I'm giving this 3 stars because it's not the author's fault that I didn't enjoy this. Maybe owners of huge start-ups can learn a lot from this.
This is about huge start-ups that need investors, so not applicable to me. I was able to finish this quickly because I skipped many parts, specifically those about venture capitalists, employee management, and also technology. I bootstrapped Sociopoliticool and don't have any plan to seek investors or have a co-founder. I'm giving this 3 stars because it's not the author's fault that I didn't enjoy this. Maybe owners of huge start-ups can learn a lot from this.

For a brief moment, I forgot I was reading a book about history, so when empires and sociopolitical stuff showed up as examples, I was confused (I even asked myself if I was reading Machiavelli's The Prince). There were many, many detailed examples, and none stuck on my mind. I only remember the points raised. The author's intelligence is beyond mine, so there were moments that my brain became foggy and couldn't understand a thing. So, it took me many weeks to finish this.
The first part was easy to understand, though. But it became all scientific on the latter part, and science (natural, not social) has always been my least-favorite subject. I also want to mention that this is "a brief history of humankind," but it is too long for me. Here are some highlights:
I have more highlights, but this review is now long!
For a brief moment, I forgot I was reading a book about history, so when empires and sociopolitical stuff showed up as examples, I was confused (I even asked myself if I was reading Machiavelli's The Prince). There were many, many detailed examples, and none stuck on my mind. I only remember the points raised. The author's intelligence is beyond mine, so there were moments that my brain became foggy and couldn't understand a thing. So, it took me many weeks to finish this.
The first part was easy to understand, though. But it became all scientific on the latter part, and science (natural, not social) has always been my least-favorite subject. I also want to mention that this is "a brief history of humankind," but it is too long for me. Here are some highlights:
I have more highlights, but this review is now long!