What are you currently reading?

[aligreto]

Never a good move that, deferring one's appreciation, or lack thereof, to one's wife. 

Too true, my friend. A bad move really. One does not know the level of retort that one will receive 

[Florestan]

Too true, my friend. A bad move really. One does not know the level of retort that one will receive 

There's a Romanian joke.

Two old friends who had not met for a very long time meet in a bar. After a few drinks, one of them says:

"You know, my friend, I got married! I tell you, my wife is an angel!"

To which the other one replies:

"Yeah, I can see where you're coming from! My wife is no human being either!"



(I'm being unfair here, my wife is really a wonderful human being.  )

[aligreto]

There's a Romanian joke.

Two old friends who had not met for a very long time meet in a bar. After a few drinks, one of them says:

"You know, my friend, I got married! I tell you, my wife is an angel!"

To which the other one replies:

"Yeah, I can see where you're coming from! My wife is no human being either!"



(I'm being unfair here, my wife is really a wonderful human being.  )

Wonderful; I enjoyed the subtlety of that. 

I would also unreservedly publicly confess that my wife is definitely the better half. 

[Florestan]

Wonderful; I enjoyed the subtlety of that. 

I would also unreservedly publicly confess that my wife is definitely the better half. 

Given that the Celts inhabited a good part of present day Romania back then, there's no wonder! 

b'fhéidir gur deartháireacha muid. 

[Brian]

They are both a dime a dozen, but how many Kittys and Levins do you know?

The American educated left (of which I am a member lol) has a great many Levins, rich people who think they know how to help the poor, and develop elaborate theories to do so, without actually asking the poor themselves about it.

[Florestan]

The American educated left (of which I am a member lol) has a great many Levins, rich people who think they know how to help the poor, and develop elaborate theories to do so, without actually asking the poor themselves about it.

Oh, I am absolutely sure about it and I take your word for it, but they are no Levin at all, at all! --- how many of them really do quit their well paid jobs as professors, journalists, psychologists, government clerks etc etc etc whatever, and take to the fields as mere farmers? You see, Tolstoy / Levin was sincere, he eventually practiced what he preached and died in the process. The American educated left on the contrary is as insincere as it gets, not a single one of them would take the Tolstoy/ Levin route; they talk the talk ad nauseam but they never walk the walk. They are all a bunch of hypocrites. If you, Brian, are any different, then kudos to you and my apologies. 

I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn's commentary upon Chekhov's Three Sisters: We want to work, work, work! --- okay, just go working, damn you, who the hell  hinders you from working, damn you? 

[aligreto]

b'fhéidir gur deartháireacha muid. 

b'fhéidir gur bhfuil sin ceart, a chara 

[Brian]

Oh, I am absolutely sure about it and I take your word for it, but they are no Levin at all, at all! --- how many of them really do quit their well paid jobs as professors, journalists, psychologists, government clerks etc etc etc whatever, and take to the fields as mere farmers? You see, Tolstoy / Levin was sincere, he eventually practiced what he preached and died in the process. The American educated left on the contrary is as insincere as it gets, not a single one of them would take the Tolstoy/ Levin route; they talk the talk ad nauseam but they never walk the walk. They are all a bunch of hypocrites. If you, Brian, are any different, then kudos to you and my apologies. 

I don't follow Levin because I don't see that it actually helps society. It makes him personally feel better, but it doesn't bring about systemic change.

(A modern Levin might be the philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that nobody should accumulate wealth while other people are poor.)

[vers la flamme]

Why don't you go for Turgenev? His novels are not intimidating bricks, his insights are just as interesting as Dostoyevsky's and Tolstoy's and imho he's more delicate, warm, humane and fun to read than both. Ditto for Chekhov's short stories and novellas.

I read both Turgenev (Fathers & Sons) and Chekhov (a bunch of plays), and some stories by Gogol for that matter, back in college. I took a great Russian lit class that was one of the highlights of my time there, as far as classes go. But I would love to reread some of that stuff. Thanks for the suggestions.

I just finished Becket's Waiting for Godot for the first time. Very silly stuff.

[vers la flamme]

This site  has free online versions of both books along with every analysis that has ever been published, although it may take a while to find

Hahaha  My brother sent this to me too when he saw I was reading Borges.

[Florestan]

I don't follow Levin because I don't see that it actually helps society. It makes him personally feel better, but it doesn't bring about systemic change.

I think the main reason you don't follow Levin is that you have no interest in, or calling for, being a farmer to begin with. 

(A modern Levin might be the philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that nobody should accumulate wealth while other people are poor.)

He argues, but does he apply the theory to himself? I'm sure that compared to the poor in Subsaharan Africa Singer is super-rich. Is he willing to renounce his wealth? Why of course not, let others more rich than him begin. You see, Singer is that kind of guy who knows exactly what everybody else should do but he won't do it himself unless everybody else really does it. He talks the talk (and the talk is quite lucrative, actually) but he doesn't walk the walk. This is the hypocrisy I was alluding to. Levin, on the other hand, naive and idealist as he is, practices what he preaches and does himself what he would like others to do without waiting for everybody else to do it. He is honest and sincere. Fiurthermore, Singer is quite totalitarian with his universal prescriptions (which he doesn't follow himself), while Levin wishes to persuade by personal example and acts according to his own theory.They couldn't be more different.

[Brian]

Do you actually know all of that about Singer, or are you just guessing?

[Florestan]

Do you actually know all of that about Singer, or are you just guessing?

I'm guessing that the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne and a former chair of the philosophy department at Monash University and the aiuthor of numerous books and articles has a standard of living which, in comparison to, say, the poor of Uganda or Burundi, can be described as rich and accumulated wealth.

Look, I'm not faulting him for that, it would be the top of absurdity. What I take issues with is this:

Peter Singer [...] argues that nobody should accumulate wealth while other people are poor.

This is never going to happen, ever, period. It's just unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Arguing it might make Singer feel better (just as Levin felt better working the fields) but it won't bring about any systemic change, to use your own words. 

(We've drifted way off topic, we should actually stop.)

[Mandryka]

I just finished Becket's Waiting for Godot for the first time. Very silly stuff.

Yep, it's absurd.

[Mandryka]

My feeling is that this is utter crap.

[Florestan]

My feeling is that this is utter crap.

I see nothing at all. What is it?

[Mandryka]

I see nothing at all. What is it?

That's amusing after my comment about Beckett and the absurd. It is a book called Au commencement du septième jour by Luc Lang.

[Florestan]

That's amusing after my comment about Beckett and the absurd. It is a book called Au commencemen du septième jour by Luc Lang.

Thanks. 

[Mandryka]

I was thinking of you, in fact, because I just read a comment that Rihm felt an affinity for Schumann partly because Schumann wrote a lot of stuff explaining his music, I was reminded of your thought that it's only modern composers who feel the need to write explanatory texts, give lectures. I'm not sure if the comment about Schumann is true, though the book is seriously serious. 

[Florestan]

I was thinking of you, in fact, because I just read a comment that Rihm felt an affinity for Schumann partly because Schumann wrote a lot of stuff explaining his music, I was reminded of your thought that it's only modern composers who feel the need to write explanatory texts, give lectures. I'm not sure if the comment about Schumann is true, though the book is seriously serious.

AFAIK, Schumann wrote a lot of letters to Clara "explaining" his music to her (insofar as his purple prose can be said to be explanatory at all*) but I am not aware of him writing a lot of stuff explaining his music to the readers of the NZfM.

*For instance, he told her this about Kreisleriana: "I'm overflowing with music and beautiful melodies now – imagine, since my last letter I've finished another whole notebook of new pieces. I intend to call it Kreisleriana. You and one of your ideas play the main role in it, and I want to dedicate it to you – yes, to you and nobody else – and then you will smile so sweetly when you discover yourself in it". I guess it might be seen as an explanation of sorts.