What are you currently reading?

[Mn Dave]

I read The Last Quarry, probably because you rec'd it!

And...?

[DavidW]

And...?

I liked it, really short though, easy to read in one sitting.  I don't remember it that well now.  Think it's been a couple of years?

[Drasko]

I haven't read them all, however I did enjoy these:

GRIFTER'S GAME by Lawrence Block
QUARRY IN THE MIDDLE by Max Allan Collins
PLUNDER OF THE SUN by David Dodge
THE LAST QUARRY by Max Allan Collins
HOME IS THE SAILOR by Day Keene

Also, watch this thread!:  http://dunderthome.yuku.com/topic/1983/Your-top-five-Hard-Case-Crime-picks#.TfIDQuaPDVQ

Thanks for recs and for setting up the query. That's nice.

[Mn Dave]

Thanks for recs and for setting up the query. That's nice.

You're welcome. Always happy to help out a fellow reader of the good stuff. 

[Bogey]

When you get lines in the first paragraph like:

"She was small and blonde and whether you looked at her face or body in powder blue sports clothes, the result was satisfactory."

Just the use of the last word in that sentence, "satisfactory" shows the word smithing ability of the likes of Hammett, IMO.  Read this sentence to my wife and she recognized its brilliance as well.

[nimrod]

I am reading a book written in the late 1920's by Upton Sinclair, "Boston."   I find it is amazing to see the parallels between the politics of that time and the politics of today.  It is fascinating reading and I find myself wondering how the author could be so relevant to today.  It is a story about how America finds its place in the world- the world of war, the world of preventing war, the world of politics and the common man.  Great book.

[Scarpia]

Most recent reading has been two Novels by Philip K. Dick, Now Wait for Last Year, which I did not care for, and Dr. Bloodmoney, which was quite good.

Now Wait for Last Year takes place in the future and involves a drug which can supposedly cause a person to move in time, or move to a different reality (not just a hallucination).  The main idea of the story made no sense to me and the whole thing was overly complicated.

Dr. Bloodmoney also involves some "magical" elements, such as people who have supernatural powers, but it fell within my "suspension of disbelief" capability.  The story involves people who survive a nuclear war and try to make their way in the devastated landscape that results.  Details of the present and imaginings of the future are woven together to make an interesting synthesis.

[Coco]

I'm putting down Kant for now. I am starting to feel that this is something that requires expansive study as opposed to merely reading it in a linear way, and I don't think I have enough time to devote the attention required to gain true value from it.

Reading: Adorno - Aesthetic Theory

Not exactly moving on to light reading, but reading art criticism/theory seems much more relevant to my goals and interests (studying music) and less like a detour.

[Scarpia]

I'm putting down Kant for now. I am starting to feel that this is something that requires expansive study as opposed to merely reading it in a linear way, and I don't think I have enough time to devote the attention required to gain true value from it.

You're assuming there is value in it.   

[Coco]

You're assuming there is value in it.   

I usually take received wisdom in cases like this. If it has been so important to so many great thinkers I should probably become acquainted with it, and then decide whether to dismiss all of it, or just certain aspects of it.

[Scarpia]

I usually take received wisdom in cases like this. If it has been so important to so many great thinkers I should probably become acquainted with it, and then decide whether to dismiss all of it, or just certain aspects of it.

Is it ethics, aesthetic, or teleology that you are reading Kant for?

[Coco]

Is it ethics, aesthetic, or teleology that you are reading Kant for?

I was working on Critique of Pure Reason, so teleology. I had initially planned on going through all the critiques, though Kant on aesthetics would probably be useful.

Might I suggest reading Palmquist in regards to Kant. I find Palmquist to be much smoother in his prose, while losing none of the logic and rigor. 

Thanks, I'll look him up.

[DavidW]

I read Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism

[asin]0521422817[/asin]

This is an eye opening read.  I realize that the way that I listen to music is why I have such broad interests from Bach to Carter, while the way that I read novels is why my interests are not broad at all.  But they used to be.  As an unliterary I read for the events, to find out what happens, and I form biased prejudgments that keep me away from many novels.  I also like seeing that Lewis is no snob, it's not about what you read but how you read it.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to empty my mind and read some novels that I've left gathering dust on my shelf.

[karlhenning]

I read Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism


This is an eye opening read.  I realize that the way that I listen to music is why I have such broad interests from Bach to Carter, while the way that I read novels is why my interests are not broad at all.  But they used to be.  As an unliterary I read for the events, to find out what happens, and I form biased prejudgments that keep me away from many novels.  I also like seeing that Lewis is no snob, it's not about what you read but how you read it.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to empty my mind and read some novels that I've left gathering dust on my shelf.

Knew you'd enjoy the reading, Davey!

[Scarpia]

I was working on Critique of Pure Reason, so teleology. I had initially planned on going through all the critiques, though Kant on aesthetics would probably be useful.

In younger days I had a strong interest in philosophy.  At this point, although I still understand that philosophy was important in the historical development of modern culture, I don't think the actual findings of earlier philosophers have much relevance.  What it boils down to is that fact that they all made assumptions that seemed obvious to them, but which are not really defensible.  The elaborate reasoning that allows them to draw conclusions about the nature of reality are less important than those assumptions.  It all seems like an elaborate game to obscure the fact that you have rigged the answer with those obtuse, obscure assumptions.

My skepticism probably started after reading Bertrand Russell, who remarked on Descartes' statement "I think therefore I am" that "never had so many errors been made using so few words."  Even the simple fact that our language has the words "I" and "am" implies unexamined assumptions, and so philosophical reason tells us about the nature of our grammar, rather than the nature of the universe.

Kant's catagorical imperative seems also beside the point.  Ethics can be understood in an entirely empirical way, based on biology and natural selection or, considered from another point of view, game theory.

[ibanezmonster]

I'm putting down Kant for now. I am starting to feel that this is something that requires expansive study as opposed to merely reading it in a linear way, and I don't think I have enough time to devote the attention required to gain true value from it.

I tried listening to an audio CD of it while I was in class, and understood very little. That's how I started talking to a friend- this old, Jamaican guy that everyone in the class thought was dumb because he didn't know anything about computers. Obviously, he wasn't dumb, because he could understand Kant well, and I couldn't. 

He recommended me to start off with other philosophers and the progress to Kant, because he said that book is one of the hardest to understand. Now I've forgotten exactly which philosophers he told me about.  I'll get to that eventually, though not now.

I think, mainly, he just loved to read and knew a lot about classic novels and such, too... and it also turned out he was a classical music fan, though I didn't get any details about which composers he was into. I haven't seen him in a while, though, unfortunately.

[DavidW]

Knew you'd enjoy the reading, Davey!

It was one of those rare books where I learned something important!

[Coco]

In younger days I had a strong interest in philosophy.  At this point, although I still understand that philosophy was important in the historical development of modern culture, I don't think the actual findings of earlier philosophers have much relevance.  What it boils down to is that fact that they all made assumptions that seemed obvious to them, but which are not really defensible.  The elaborate reasoning that allows them to draw conclusions about the nature of reality are less important than those assumptions.  It all seems like an elaborate game to obscure the fact that you have rigged the answer with those obtuse, obscure assumptions.

My skepticism probably started after reading Bertrand Russell, who remarked on Descartes' statement "I think therefore I am" that "never had so many errors been made using so few words."  Even the simple fact that our language has the words "I" and "am" implies unexamined assumptions, and so philosophical reason tells us about the nature of our grammar, rather than the nature of the universe.

Kant's catagorical imperative seems also beside the point.  Ethics can be understood in an entirely empirical way, based on biology and natural selection or, considered from another point of view, game theory.

I agree essentially with everything you say. I feel that it is basically only important inasmuch as it relates to the history of philosophy, which is pretty much the only reason I'm going near this stuff. I've read a bit of William James on pragmatism and it seemed much more applicable to life than Enlightenment-era monism.

[Bogey]

We dropped by our hamlet's historical society today when wandering through Olde Town Arvada and there were a number of volunteers there.  They do an incredible job of collecting and preserving historical documents and pictures.  One of them recently wrote this for the Denver Post.  Pretty cool stuff, if you are into true crime:

http://denver.yourhub.com/Arvada/Blogs/Your-Voice/Blog~987810.aspx

One of the gents there then pulled out the old original newspapers for me to read about the incident.  In the old paper, many of the townspeople believed that the shot by Carleton to Markham was over an affair with Markham's wife.  It also showed a picture of Fugate with his Stetson hat on.

After, we wandered by the used to tavern and peeked inside.  You gotta love th Stetson hat piece!

[Florestan]

I tried listening to an audio CD of it while I was in class, and understood very little.

Kant's philosophy is exactly like the theory of differential equations: without concentration and pen & paper in hand, one cannot even begin to understand the definitions, let alone the whole thing. 

OTOH, it is exactly unlike the theory of differential equations, in that without at least a basic knowledge of the history of philosophy before Kant, one cannot even begin to understand the definitions, let alone the whole thing. 

That's how I started talking to a friend- this old, Jamaican guy that everyone in the class thought was dumb because he didn't know anything about computers. Obviously, he wasn't dumb, because he could understand Kant well, and I couldn't. 

He recommended me to start off with other philosophers and the progress to Kant, because he said that book is one of the hardest to understand.

Wise piece of advice.

Now I've forgotten exactly which philosophers he told me about. 

He probably meant start off with Plato and slowly make your way through the whole history of philosophy up to Kant.