What are you currently reading?

[MN Dave]

I'm laughing between sobs.

[Opus106]

I'm laughing between sobs.

Is the author a Brit?

[MN Dave]

Is the author a Brit?

Hm. Not sure. Don't think so.

[Maciek]

Ordered this: http://goo.gl/PEaV9
Krzysztof Meyer - "Dmitri Schostakowitsch: Sein Leben, sein Werk, seine Zeit"



Anyone knowing? Not sure if it has been released in languages other than polish and german.

I've leafed through both the earlier (censored) edition which had an abundance of musical examples, and the newer, revised (and uncensored) one (which leaves most of the score bits out), but I have not read either in its entirety. The sections I did read seemed interesting and informative enough, but I haven't read any other book on Shostakovich... How do you like it?

[greg]

Guts by Chuck Palahniuk

Yes... I read this out of curiosity. 
If it made over 50 people faint while being read aloud, I just couldn't resist. Absolutely disgusting read, that is all.
I wonder if this is how South Park got the idea for the episode where the boys decide to write the grossest book ever written, which ends up making everyone throw up.

Google it. 

[DavidRoss]

Yes.

[SonicMan46]

A couple of wine books - bought a bunch of updated versions of previous books I've owned - for those interested in this vinous pleasure, check out the 'Wine Thread' - pics and more detailed descriptions! 

[Philoctetes]

Africa Doesn't Matter by Giles Bolton

It's very enjoyable so far. Quite harrowing.

[Philoctetes]

Africa Doesn't Matter by Giles Bolton

It's very enjoyable so far. Quite harrowing.

I enjoy books that curtail their preaching to simply present the facts, and this book did just that; until the last few chapters which were simply an extended rant speaking of glory and activism, but other than those last few chapters, the book was fantastic.

Up next: Beyond Humanitarianism edited by Princeton Lyman and Patricia Dorff

So far this book is much drier, but it's more robust in a practical-politico sense.

[Todd]

I had to take a break from Kafka's disappointing The Castle, and what better way than with a truly academic study of Central Asia?  Though brief, The New Central Asia is so dense and filled with information that it is slow going.  Olivier Roy zooms through the pre-Soviet period, yet he still covers the immense complexity of the ethnic and linguistic history of the region well.  His history of the Sovietization of the region is masterly and reveals the complexity, cynicism, and calculation of what Stalin and those who followed did.  (One could study just this for years.)  I am still working my way through this section.  The book is filled with academic jargon, and presupposes knowledge of the region, and some of the translations from French appear to be less than ideal, so it can be tough.  I'm very glad that I read a trio of works by Peter Hopkirk, and a couple other works on the region, before attempting this book.  I'm still but a beginner when it comes to studying this area.

I should also note that this book was written in the 90s, so it doesn't cover the post-9/11 changes, but there is one interesting little blurb near the beginning where the author states that Afghanistan was a sort of battleground between Pakistan and Uzbekistan in the 90s, with the former trying to create a buffer state by supporting the Taliban.  Sort of explains why Pakistan isn't quite the ally some have hoped it would be, and why it probably never will be.

[Fëanor]

I've read several books by Ferguson; this is the latest and I recommend it ...

Niall Ferguson: Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power
... Amazon.com

[AndyD.]

Absolutely fascinating. The author (Bryan Magee of The Tristan Chord, another favorite) makes all the salient points in Schopenhauer's philosophy both easy to understand and fun (yes, FUN!) to read. Highly reccomended.

[drogulus]

Absolutely fascinating. The author (Bryan Magee of The Tristan Chord, another favorite) makes all the salient points in Schopenhauer's philosophy both easy to understand and fun (yes, FUN!) to read. Highly reccomended.

     Interesting as psychology and fun I have no doubt, but it's meh tuh fish sticks!!

     

     Try William James. Pick a book, any book. I haven't read more than sections of them, but it's true of philosophy generally that books aren't the unit of significance (they aren't novels). Warning: James is incautious at times and sounds like he endorses views he doesn't hold. Anyway, read him, he's fun and psychological, too.

     

     I just finished A.D. 381 by Charles Freeman, who wrote The Closing of the Western Mind. Both books are concerned with the destruction of a thousand years of intellectual freedom in the Greek world, which Freeman attributes principally to the decisions of the Roman emperors beginning with Theodosius. This was the Stalin that succeeded. A sizable chunk of the population chooses what to think because he outlawed the alternatives more than 1600 years ago. That is success by almost any measure. What do people think when they're free to think? Well, in matters of religion the record shows that tolerance was not just a state policy invented by Constantine but was the norm in both the Greek and Roman world right up to the reign of Valentinian and Valens, both of whom reaffirmed the Edicts of 313.

[AndyD.]

I think many of the best philosophers take positions on things they don't personally have a stake in. People have dragged Nietzsche over the coals for having, as they put it, "changed his mind too many times". Yet one could argue that that was a bit more realistic than the opposite.

I read William James in my first year Psych in college. He's reputed to be an early psychologist. It's interesting: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hegel, Dostoevsky, and Kierkegaard probably deserve that label at least as much as James, who borrowed liberally off of them. Just as Freud and Jung borrowed off of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

[drogulus]

     I think James is vastly more important in philosophy, where his influence is huge. Russell, for example, started out disparaging him and ended up thinking he was the key to 20th century developments. But he misread James as saying anything goes ("truth is what works"). That's not the way he's read today. It's more like "only what works can tell you what's true" and then only if what's true is what you're looking for.

     

     Now I'm reading Hadrian by Anthony Everitt.  I read his books on Augustus and Cicero, both very fine. I just started this one.

[Florestan]

          I just finished A.D. 381 by Charles Freeman, who wrote The Closing of the Western Mind. Both books are concerned with the destruction of a thousand years of intellectual freedom in the Greek world, which Freeman attributes principally to the decisions of the Roman emperors beginning with Theodosius. This was the Stalin that succeeded. A sizable chunk of the population chooses what to think because he outlawed the alternatives more than 1600 years ago. That is success by almost any measure. What do people think when they're free to think? Well, in matters of religion the record shows that tolerance was not just a state policy invented by Constantine but was the norm in both the Greek and Roman world right up to the reign of Valentinian and Valens, both of whom reaffirmed the Edicts of 313.

Could you elaborate a bit more? What you wrote is completely incomprehensible from an Orthodox Christian point of view. And if you can't make it comprehensible in exactly this POV, then it's gibberish. We're talking intellectual life in the 4th Century AD in the Roman Empire, aren't we?

[Florestan]

Schopenhauer's philosophy

Someone whose name I don't recall once said something to the effect that Schopenhauer and Christianity stand wall to wall --- only there is no door between. Notwithstanding, Arthur S. is one of my philosophical heroes, along with Pascal and Kierkegaard. 

[drogulus]

Could you elaborate a bit more? What you wrote is completely incomprehensible from an Orthodox Christian point of view. And if you can't make it comprehensible in exactly this POV, then it's gibberish. We're talking intellectual life in the 4th Century AD in the Roman Empire, aren't we?

    I'm talking about intellectual life in the Roman world, and I agree with Freeman, who is comprehensible. That is, his historical perspective is driven by a factual record, not the desire to cover anything up.

    Are you saying there was no freedom of thought and belief in the Greek and Roman world before it was effectively curtailed? If you are saying this you'll have to elaborate. I don't think you should, or can, or you would have done so.

    Now, let's be nice. You aren't spreading intentional falsehoods. I expect you really don't know what Freeman is saying, and your conditioning makes it sound strange ("incomprehensible"). I'd say "trust me" but heck, even I wouldn't do that. Or you could read the books and find I fairly represent them, as reviews will also show. What do you think? Give it a try, eh?

[karlhenning]

. . . What do people think when they're free to think?

Well, let's ask Poju . . . .

[drogulus]

    I don't know....when the Greeks were free they invented philosophy. No one told them to, or told them they couldn't, at least not until....oh, I don't want to be incomprehensible, so never mind. Anyway, you take the bad with the good when it comes to free thought. It's The American Way, too.

   

    A thousand dumb schmucks are free so I can read and express what I want (for "me" read, you know, you).