Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Stark on July 28, 2010, 08:59:25 AM
-
Reading an awesome book atm
Author: William R. Forstchen
Title: 1 second after
The book deals with a fictional EMP attack on the USA which means all of USA has no electric power apart from hardened military vehicles airplanes,
It mostly discribes the outcome in a small village in the USA and the frightning change of people the breakdown of human kind and day to day affairs which we take for granted.
In a matter of weeks the town has declared martial law and celebrates its first execution.
It is very well researched and is extremely frighting to read to be honest.
On a sidenote: purpleaki thank you for your recomendation of WW V (I've read it and its extremly good as well)
-
The only book everyone on earth should be reading and will be reading.
-
The only book everyone on earth should be reading and will be reading.
done that
Also Arnold's book about his life is worth reading as well
-
Wot iz book, all about interwebs Broski
-
I'm rereading "The Killer Angels" about the battle at Gettysburgh in the US Civil War. Gives an awesome perspective of what war was like during that time, the day to day things, etc...
-
I'm rereading "The Killer Angels" about the battle at Gettysburgh in the US Civil War. Gives an awesome perspective of what war was like during that time, the day to day things, etc...
Superb choice, Show! Great book and a surprise for the Pulitzer way-back-when. Still waiting to find a good copy for the shelf.
-
this month I am reading:
Paulo Freire. Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince
Albert Camus. The Plague
Hannah Arendt. Between Past and Future
Jean Bethke Elshtain. Just War Against Terror
these are required reading for my political theory class this fall. im trying to get them out of the way
-
Superb choice, Show! Great book and a surprise for the Pulitzer way-back-when. Still waiting to find a good copy for the shelf.
Mine is paperback, this is the 3rd time I have read it. Just one of those books that grabs you...the details are incredible and he does justice to both sides of the conflict and give so many perspectives on what was going on/thought process, etc... I really hope the service academys use it as required reading, just as a way of identifying the relationship between officer and enlisted.
-
American Gods is very good. I think the author is Neil Gaiman.
-
Mine is paperback, this is the 3rd time I have read it. Just one of those books that grabs you...the details are incredible and he does justice to both sides of the conflict and give so many perspectives on what was going on/thought process, etc... I really hope the service academys use it as required reading, just as a way of identifying the relationship between officer and enlisted.
Ha,damn read that years ago.might have to pull it off the shelf.I've been reading alot on the Korean war lately.
-
Ha,damn read that years ago.might have to pull it off the shelf.I've been reading alot on the Korean war lately.
If you're looking for a good book with a war theme, I recommend Karl Marlantes' 'Matterhorn.' Just came out, and it's a 30-years-in-the-writing of his time in Vietnam. It's big, too. 650-pages big. I figured that I'd pick it up from time to time. I finished it in 3 days. I haven't read like that in years. Superb. Took me 50-odd pages to get the military jargon and ranks straight, tho.
-
American Gods is very good. I think the author is Neil Gaman.
Gaiman is the author. Ever read The Sandman?
-
Gaiman is the author. Ever read The Sandman?
The Graveyard Book
Neverwhere
-
Ha,damn read that years ago.might have to pull it off the shelf.I've been reading alot on the Korean war lately.
You know what they say about great minds, right? but even as I reread it, I am always a bit depressed because I know the ending.... :-\
-
The only book everyone on earth should be reading and will be reading.
right ! I've read that book from front to back 5 times when I bought my first copy back in 86 :o I have that new updated version as well
-
Reading an awesome book atm
Author: William R. Forstchen
Title: 1 second after
The book deals with a fictional EMP attack on the USA which means all of USA has no electric power apart from hardened military vehicles airplanes,
It mostly discribes the outcome in a small village in the USA and the frightning change of people the breakdown of human kind and day to day affairs which we take for granted.
In a matter of weeks the town has declared martial law and celebrates its first execution.
It is very well researched and is extremely frighting to read to be honest.
On a sidenote: purpleaki thank you for your recomendation of WW V (I've read it and its extremly good as well)
That's when these tools will come in handy. ;)
-
Gaiman is the author. Ever read The Sandman?
Not yet, but its on my list. I have read The Grave Yard Book though.
-
American Gods is very good. I think the author is Neil Gaiman.
Neverwhere is one of his best works , fantastic book :)
-
If you're looking for a good book with a war theme, I recommend Karl Marlantes' 'Matterhorn.' Just came out, and it's a 30-years-in-the-writing of his time in Vietnam. It's big, too. 650-pages big. I figured that I'd pick it up from time to time. I finished it in 3 days. I haven't read like that in years. Superb. Took me 50-odd pages to get the military jargon and ranks straight, tho.
Didn't see it in the bookstore last night >:(
-
This book really opened my eyes towards modern society and the complex world in which we live...
(http://www.baby-books-guide.com/image-files/the-very-hungry-caterpillar-01.jpg)
-
This book really opened my eyes towards modern society and the complex world in which we live...
(http://www.baby-books-guide.com/image-files/the-very-hungry-caterpillar-01.jpg)
Tell us more about this book webcake sounds interesting.
-
Tell us more about this book webcake sounds interesting.
Well i wouldn't want to ruin it for you, but basically there is a caterpillar and it is very hungry. Really changed how i see things. I'd go as far as to say it changed my life.
-
I just read Catch-22. It's my goal to read the 100 greatest english and non english novels of all time. I'm about 3 books in! ;D
Currently reading "Chariots of the Gods" about the world being populated by aliens thousands of years ago. my wife got it for me as a joke because that fucking "ancient aliens" show is on the history channel all the time and they keep mentioning the book. but i don't like having a book on a bookshelf i haven't read, so i'm leafing through it as i'm dropping juicy steamers in the shitter.
-
Well i wouldn't want to ruin it for you, but basically there is a caterpillar and it is very hungry. Really changed how i see things. I'd go as far as to say it changed my life.
Webcake I think this is a childrens book so you learned some things from a childrens book, interesting I'm not knocking it.
-
Webcake I think this is a childrens book so you learned some things from a childrens book, interesting.
What are you implying?
-
the scum moderators on this site deleted a thread about this book the other day.........i forget who posted it, they were not saying anything provocotive except that this is a great read..............i WILL be reading this book
http://www.white-history.com/ (http://www.white-history.com/)
-
What are you implying?
Nothing I'm sincerely interested not knocking it..
-
Didn't see it in the bookstore last night >:(
http://www.amazon.com/Matterhorn-Novel-Vietnam-Karl-Marlantes/dp/080211928X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280414319&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Matterhorn-Novel-Vietnam-Karl-Marlantes/dp/080211928X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280414319&sr=1-1)
-
the scum moderators on this site deleted a thread about this book the other day.........i forget who posted it, they were not saying anything provocotive except that this is a great read..............i WILL be reading this book
http://www.white-history.com/ (http://www.white-history.com/)
May I also promote and suggest you read "the turner diaries"
-
May I also promote and suggest you read "the turner diaries"
you know, as a racist, the turner diaries is one of those books that i feel like im supposed to love...........but i actually found it kinda underwhelming ;D ;D
it like black people not liking the movie "Roots"...............lol...... ........but honestly, i found it to be just OK
-
you know, as a racist, the turner diaries is one of those books that i feel like im supposed to love...........but i actually found it kinda underwhelming ;D ;D
it like black people not liking the movie "Roots"...............lol...... ........but honestly, i found it to be just OK
I agree, I was laughing most of the time when I read the book at the simple and
unsophisticated way it was written - but than again if you know anything about Pierce and not buy into the idiotic way of "white power" believes but stay an objective and informed individual you figure out pretty fast that he isn't the brightest light on this planet.
Same can be said about Hitlers my Kampf, which I also tried to read - and I really tried - but it just bored the backside of me.
now Freud on the other hand is a completely different ball game, equally as boring but just harder to read and understand - if you understand it at all.
BTW you should not buy The turner diaries, don't support these guys.
-
(http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/s/sp/spharen_iii.jpg)
-
I agree, I was laughing most of the time when I read the book at the simple and
unsophisticated way it was written - but than again if you know anything about Pierce and not buy into the idiotic way of "white power" believes but stay an objective and informed individual you figure out pretty fast that he isn't the brightest light on this planet.
Same can be said about Hitlers my Kampf, which I also tried to read - and I really tried - but it just bored the backside of me.
now Freud on the other hand is a completely different ball game, equally as boring but just harder to read and understand - if you understand it at all.
BTW you should not buy The turner diaries, don't support these guys.
yeah, turner diaries was could have been written by a 7th grader, very terse and not very eloquent
but when i saw the toothless idiot who wrote it interviewed, i became pretty evident he probably only had a 7th grade education
-
I agree, I was laughing most of the time when I read the book at the simple and
unsophisticated way it was written - but than again if you know anything about Pierce and not buy into the idiotic way of "white power" believes but stay an objective and informed individual you figure out pretty fast that he isn't the brightest light on this planet.
Same can be said about Hitlers my Kampf, which I also tried to read - and I really tried - but it just bored the backside of me.
now Freud on the other hand is a completely different ball game, equally as boring but just harder to read and understand - if you understand it at all.
BTW you should not buy The turner diaries, don't support these guys.
Never thought Freud was that difficult. Just basically stole everything from a long line of European intellectuals, added the extra pinch of scientism which was typical of the time and professed that he altogether created a new science. Interesting but not as groundbreaking as it's said. Most of what he says can be found going back to the French "moralistes" (La Bruyère, La Rochefoucauld, Joubert, Chamfort,...), La Boetie's philosophy, Nietzsche, Dostoeivski, and so on. Wittgenstein on the other side is hard to understand.
-
Never thought Freud was that difficult. Just basically stole everything from a long line of European intellectuals, added the extra pinch of scientism which was typical of the time and professed that he altogether created a new science. Interesting but not as groundbreaking as it's said. Most of what he says can be found going back to the French "moralistes" (La Bruyère, La Rochefoucauld, Joubert, Chamfort,...), La Boetie's philosophy, Nietzsche, Dostoeivski, and so on. Wittgenstein on the other side is hard to understand.
I am not talking about Freud's author style, I am talking about actually reading his books, which I personalty find hard.
You might be different all together I am talking about my personal experience.
-
Reading an awesome book atm
Author: William R. Forstchen
Title: 1 second after
The book deals with a fictional EMP attack on the USA which means all of USA has no electric power apart from hardened military vehicles airplanes,
It mostly discribes the outcome in a small village in the USA and the frightning change of people the breakdown of human kind and day to day affairs which we take for granted.
In a matter of weeks the town has declared martial law and celebrates its first execution.
It is very well researched and is extremely frighting to read to be honest.
On a sidenote: purpleaki thank you for your recomendation of WW V (I've read it and its extremly good as well)
Watch The Colony, it's on Discovery Channel or History.com. They have to act like this has happened, they have no electricity, must ration food and fight off bandits.
-
yeah, turner diaries was could have been written by a 7th grader, very terse and not very eloquent
but when i saw the toothless idiot who wrote it interviewed, i became pretty evident he probably only had a 7th grade education
But I love people like him, they are interesting and a great counterbalance to the wishy washy political correctness mad world we life in.
There has to be always a counterbalance.
-
I am not talking about Freud's author style, I am talking about actually reading his books, which I personalty find hard.
You might be different all together I am talking about my personal experience.
It's a matter of background as you said. Reading freud never was fun to me. But I had read quite a lot of authors before that made it easier to get. I just was always very suspicious with that "this is undisputable science!" kind of approach which he has a lot of times. Actually, same problem with Marx.
-
It's a matter of background as you said. Reading freud never was fun to me. But I had read quite a lot of authors before that made it easier to get. I just was always very suspicious with that "this is undisputable science!" kind of approach which he has a lot of times. Actually, same problem with Marx.
I fully agree with you, I was never blessed with a head that reads something and absorbed all the information without actual work.
I have to WORK to understand something.
Concentration is a huge effort for me especially if I am not interested in a subject but know I need to understand it.
I am interested in psychology and sociology but never received an eduction which would have lead me to read these books when
I was younger.
You have to know your talents, my talent is reading People, something I learned very early in my life or better had to learn, I've had
people tell me that I have a near spooky feeling about people and can observe and analyze people very good and I am very rarely wrong.
However understanding complex matters and text is not my talent, which means that If I want to truly understand the great psychologists
and or philosophers I need to work for it.
And to be honest if I don't see the sense in reading on if I truly have the feeling this is of no use... why continue.
I certainly despise people that read books just so they can brag they read them... whats the point.
-
I fully agree with you, I was never blessed with a head that reads something and absorbed all the information without actual work.
I have to WORK to understand something.
Concentration is a huge effort for me especially if I am not interested in a subject but know I need to understand it.
I am interested in psychology and sociology but never received an eduction which would have lead me to read these books when
I was younger.
You have to know your talents, my talent is reading People, something I learned very early in my life or better had to learn, I've had
people tell me that I have a near spooky feeling about people and can observe and analyze people very good and I am very rarely wrong.
However understanding complex matters and text is not my talent, which means that If I want to truly understand the great psychologists
and or philosophers I need to work for it.
And to be honest if I don't see the sense in reading on if I truly have the feeling this is of no use... why continue.
I certainly despise people that read books just so they can brag they read them... whats the point.
Same for everyone. Some maybe a little better at understanding concepts and words (meaning etimological constructions that occur in philsophy very often since Kant).
You have to go through a learning process where you finally realize that most of what you read won't really stick. Brilliant intellectual constructions but either shallow in comparison of what reality is or just plain mischievous. Nietzsche said that philosophers have never really searched for truth but have in fact been writing their own biographies disguised as complex concepts. Personaly , I still read some as a kind of intellectual workout but to be honest there's much richer things to read than philosophy in general apart from a few exceptions. I think you learn much more by reading anything by Emily Dickinson then by reading everything Heidegger wrote.
-
Same for everyone. Some maybe a little better at understanding concepts and words (meaning etimological constructions that occur in philsophy very often since Kant).
You have to go through a learning process where you finally realize that most of what you read won't really stick. Brilliant intellectual constructions but either shallow in comparison of what reality is or just plain mischievous. Nietzsche said that philosophers have never really searched for truth but have in fact been writing their own biographies disguised as complex concepts. Personaly , I still read some as a kind of intellectual workout but to be honest there's much richer things to read than philosophy in general apart from a few exceptions. I think you learn much more by reading anything by Emily Dickinson then by reading everything Heidegger wrote.
Great response
I am interested what is your background?
-
Great response
I am interested what is your background?
First, I'm French (don't hate). Actually, studied music and was a musician for years. Did law school (both parents had law degrees so I was kind of brought up in that environment which made it easier). But I was really interested in litterature from an early age. Read all of Moliere's theater plays when I was 11 and read tons of classic novels. Then I did exactly what you despise. Though for a while philosophy was THE thing to master. Then a bit of sociology. Less psychology thoug, in France, sociology is highly popular in college (mostly coming from the marxist tendencies which still exists here). Spent years reading Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, etc....I still care for a few philosophers though. Very few in fact. I consider most classic russian novelists as much more accurate when it comes to describing the human condition then 99% of what philosophy has produced.
-
Same for everyone. Some maybe a little better at understanding concepts and words (meaning etimological constructions that occur in philsophy very often since Kant).
You have to go through a learning process where you finally realize that most of what you read won't really stick. Brilliant intellectual constructions but either shallow in comparison of what reality is or just plain mischievous. Nietzsche said that philosophers have never really searched for truth but have in fact been writing their own biographies disguised as complex concepts. Personaly , I still read some as a kind of intellectual workout but to be honest there's much richer things to read than philosophy in general apart from a few exceptions. I think you learn much more by reading anything by Emily Dickinson then by reading everything Heidegger wrote.
i think a good philosopher will be able to communicate his ideas to regular people without need for interpretation. biographies disguised as their philosophy? hm. i think thats a bit "freud" to say. i think its a bit slippery when ou want to try and analyze that deep into a persons psyche without actually knowing the person. unless a referance to their subconcious or theres a signal that metaphore is present, i wouldnt try to dig deeper than whats on the surface. most people, even famous philosophers, arent that... secretive/manipulative... it would be very presumptious and foolish of someone to write an entire work and assume that soemwhere down the line someone would understand that the whole thing was a farce that stood for something else.... people making accusations about secret hidden meanings behind literature are often projecting their own motivations for calling out secret meanings. they want to be seen as fantastically intellectual, so they tell everyone that they have connected with another outstanding intellectual from history and have found a secret meaning in their work.
-
Same for everyone. Some maybe a little better at understanding concepts and words (meaning etimological constructions that occur in philsophy very often since Kant).
You have to go through a learning process where you finally realize that most of what you read won't really stick. Brilliant intellectual constructions but either shallow in comparison of what reality is or just plain mischievous. Nietzsche said that philosophers have never really searched for truth but have in fact been writing their own biographies disguised as complex concepts. Personaly , I still read some as a kind of intellectual workout but to be honest there's much richer things to read than philosophy in general apart from a few exceptions. I think you learn much more by reading anything by Emily Dickinson then by reading everything Heidegger wrote.
reading and understanding all of those authors listed is simple to me. I just have a mind that wraps around stuff like that. Now, quantum physics, you got me there.
My take on Freud, was that he was a drug addict disguised as a intellectual. Had he been around today, he'd be in rehab. The question is, what was he really trying to hide, escape from? Why use drugs as a sort of crutch?
-
First, I'm French (don't hate). Actually, studied music and was a musician for years. Did law school (both parents had law degrees so I was kind of brought up in that environment which made it easier). But I was really interested in litterature from an early age. Read all of Moliere's theater plays when I was 11 and read tons of classic novels. Then I did exactly what you despise. Though for a while philosophy was THE thing to master. Then a bit of sociology. Less psychology thoug, in France, sociology is highly popular in college (mostly coming from the marxist tendencies which still exists here). Spent years reading Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, etc....I still care for a few philosophers though. Very few in fact. I consider most classic russian novelists as much more accurate when it comes to describing the human condition then 99% of what philosophy has produced.
you know gottfreid leibnez?? if ou havent read, hes one of the best (maybe my personal fave for certain things like the monadology). and not as outstanding, but more histroically known, rene descartes.
-
First, I'm French (don't hate). Actually, studied music and was a musician for years. Did law school (both parents had law degrees so I was kind of brought up in that environment which made it easier). But I was really interested in litterature from an early age. Read all of Moliere's theater plays when I was 11 and read tons of classic novels. Then I did exactly what you despise. Though for a while philosophy was THE thing to master. Then a bit of sociology. Less psychology thoug, in France, sociology is highly popular in college (mostly coming from the marxist tendencies which still exists here). Spent years reading Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, etc....I still care for a few philosophers though. Very few in fact. I consider most classic russian novelists as much more accurate when it comes to describing the human condition then 99% of what philosophy has produced.
wow some background - I cannot "compete" with that, I am a qualified zookeeper :D - serious
-
reading and understanding all of those authors listed is simple to me. I just have a mind that wraps around stuff like that. Now, quantum physics, you got me there.
My take on Freud, was that he was a drug addict disguised as a intellectual. Had he been around today, he'd be in rehab. The question is, what was he really trying to hide, escape from? Why use drugs as a sort of crutch?
quantum physics is philosophy
-
i think a good philosopher will be able to communicate his ideas to regular people without need for interpretation. biographies disguised as their philosophy? hm. i think thats a bit "freud" to say. i think its a bit slippery when ou want to try and analyze that deep into a persons psyche without actually knowing the person. unless a referance to their subconcious or theres a signal that metaphore is present, i wouldnt try to dig deeper than whats on the surface. most people, even famous philosophers, arent that... secretive/manipulative... it would be very presumptious and foolish of someone to write an entire work and assume that soemwhere down the line someone would understand that the whole thing was a farce that stood for something else.... people making accusations about secret hidden meanings behind literature are often projecting their own motivations for calling out secret meanings. they want to be seen as fantastically intellectual, so they tell everyone that they have connected with another outstanding intellectual from history and have found a secret meaning in their work.
Examples? You said Leibniz or Descartes. Descartes is the foundation in France. He somehow opened Pandora's box in a good way by breaking the divine cercle that theologist had upheld for so long. He's pretty easy to read. Now, Leibniz is much more complicated than that as conceptually speaking "La Monadologie" is where it all started. Everything strongly conceptualized (Kant to Hegel to Heidegger, Husserl, etc...) comes from there. Most philosophers starting wiht Leibniz (who was a mathematician also) created on purpose conceptual tools to build their systems. Nietzsche did the same but intended to kill the idea of a "system". And BTW he is considered as pre-Freudian by psychoanalysts and also as bringing as much to pyschology as to philosophy.
-
Examples? You said Leibniz or Descartes. Descartes is the foundation in France. He somehow opened Pandora's box in a good way by breaking the divine cercle that theologist had upheld for so long. He's pretty easy to read. Now, Leibniz is much more complicated than that as conceptually speaking "La Monadologie" is where it all started. Everything strongly conceptualized (Kant to Hegel to Heidegger, Husserl, etc...) comes from there. Most philosophers starting wiht Leibniz (who was a mathematician also) created on purpose conceptual tools to build their systems. Nietzsche did the same but intended to kill the idea of a "system". And BTW he is considered as pre-Freudian by psychoanalysts and also as bringing as much to pyschology as to philosophy.
i think leibniz and descartes are both easy to read. examples of others? spinoza, as you already mentioned. and of course mosty pre-descartes philosphers going back to plato and aristotle including st augustine and all the theologians. they are all pretty easy and direct, save a few.
kant is one guy who can be tough to read. i think alot of times philosophers try so hard to be accurate with their words, and they end up making their work way to drawn out and complex. they intertwine their sentences and paragraphs made up of rarely heard words, and connect a bunch of abstract ideas together hoping that people will be able to make sense of it all. of course, most of the time, what they are writing truly does make sense after you decipher through all the bullshit. its a problem with being concise, and most philosophers fail to see that point.
if you cant word soemthing so that a regular person can understand and retain it, then do you really even fully understand it yourself?
im not really familiar at all with nietzsche, i was just pointing out that his comments about philosophers really just giving biographies disguised as their philosophy was quite freudian thing to say. and while there is some truth to the psycho analytic view point, its more often way over done and over exaggerated to the point where theres really no connection between the two events that they are trying to relate. psycho analytic is the over-thinkers view point
-
wow some background - I cannot "compete" with that, I am a qualified zookeeper :D - serious
Nothing wrong with being a zookeeper. I have a real estate company now. I'll tell you, people I deal with are worse than animals.
-
i think leibniz and descartes are both easy to read. examples of others? spinoza, as you already mentioned. and of course mosty pre-descartes philosphers going back to plato and aristotle including st augustine and all the theologians. they are all pretty easy and direct, save a few.
kant is one guy who can be tough to read. i think alot of times philosophers try so hard to be accurate with their words, and they end up making their work way to drawn out and complex. they intertwine their sentences and paragraphs made up of rarely heard words, and connect a bunch of abstract ideas together hoping that people will be able to make sense of it all. of course, most of the time, what they are writing truly does make sense after you decipher through all the bullshit. its a problem with being concise, and most philosophers fail to see that point.
if you cant word soemthing so that a regular person can understand and retain it, then do you really even fully understand it yourself?
im not really familiar at all with nietzsche, i was just pointing out that his comments about philosophers really just giving biographies disguised as their philosophy was quite freudian thing to say. and while there is some truth to the psycho analytic view point, its more often way over done and over exaggerated to the point where theres really no connection between the two events that they are trying to relate. psycho analytic is the over-thinkers view point
St-Augustine as most of the Church Fathers have a very specific use of words. But, true, it does not get as twisted as Heidegger for example who's the blueprint for wordplay and neologism. Plato, Aristotle are very conceptual in fact but they had a very literary style which came form the pre-hellenistic greek culture (go back to Heraclites, Anaximandre,....) where the art of philosophy and poetry was one. Nietzsche: too many people have claimed understanding him and used random quotes, in fact just reducing his philosophy to something very narrow minded. But now, philosophers hold him as a highly important one. He brought back that the truth is an ever evolving notion and that perspective is everything.
-
St-Augustine as most of the Church Fathers have a very specific use of words. But, true, it does not get as twisted as Heidegger for example who's the blueprint for wordplay and neologism. Plato, Aristotle are very conceptual in fact but they had a very literary style which came form the pre-hellenistic greek culture (go back to Heraclites, Anaximandre,....) where the art of philosophy and poetry was one. Nietzsche: too many people have claimed understanding him and used random quotes, in fact just reducing his philosophy to something very narrow minded. But now, philosophers hold him as a highly important one. He brought back that the truth is an ever evolving notion and that perspective is everything.
truth is ever evolving? hmm.. see, im going to have to disagree, at least in part.
the truth is the truth. what is true can not be false and what is false can not be true. that is by definition, and anything to the contrary would be changing the definition of those terms.
see, modern philosophers like to disregard metaphysics and any system with reference to the infinite. they see truth as unreachable.... bbecause of problems with induction and causation pointed out by david hume.
but.. a think leibnez actually did build a workable system without gaps. causation is real.. infinite exists as God the creator, and a-priori knowledge is truly a fact..
kant and william james are two people who can bridge the gap between the rationalist and empiricsts
-
truth is ever evolving? hmm.. see, im going to have to disagree, at least in part.
the truth is the truth. what is true can not be false and what is false can not be true. that is by definition, and anything to the contrary would be changing the definition of those terms.
see, modern philosophers like to disregard metaphysics and any system with reference to the infinite. they see truth as unreachable.... bbecause of problems with induction and causation pointed out by david hume.
but.. a think leibnez actually did build a workable system without gaps. causation is real.. infinite exists as God the creator, and a-priori knowledge is truly a fact..
kant and william james are two people who can bridge the gap between the rationalist and empiricsts
I am way not as intelligent and book smart as you guys, but I disagree with you and give this a shot - even if I feel slightly intimidated :D
truth is all about what you know...
A while back people believed that the truth is that the earth is flat and we all know now how much truth was in that.
But maybe I completely misunderstood you all - possibly.
-
I am way not as intelligent and book smart as you guys, but I disagree with you and give this a shot - even if I feel slightly intimidated :D
truth is all about what you know...
A while back people believed that the truth is that the earth is flat and we all know now how much truth was in that.
But maybe I completely misunderstood you all - possibly.
But the thing is those people only thought they knew the "truth." The actual truth was something else. People thinking something, doesn't make it a truth.
-
truth is ever evolving? hmm.. see, im going to have to disagree, at least in part.
the truth is the truth. what is true can not be false and what is false can not be true. that is by definition, and anything to the contrary would be changing the definition of those terms.
see, modern philosophers like to disregard metaphysics and any system with reference to the infinite. they see truth as unreachable.... bbecause of problems with induction and causation pointed out by david hume.
but.. a think leibnez actually did build a workable system without gaps. causation is real.. infinite exists as God the creator, and a-priori knowledge is truly a fact..
kant and william james are two people who can bridge the gap between the rationalist and empiricsts
Actually Kant at the end of his life wrote a little thing about the impossibility of a real theodicy. Admitted his own system was flawed. Brilliant though as Schopenahuer, Nietzsche and Hegel all built their own philosophy on his. Hume is a spectical philosopher: actually one of the only anglo-saxon philosophers worth something with Emerson. Never dug into William James. I'm not a man of faith and metaphysics are actually a matter of faith.
-
good answer showstoppa.
the truth is the truth, by definiton.
but what is true now can become false later. for example.. joe is winning the race. truth. but 2 minutes later larry passed joe. so now joe is not winning the race, and it would no longer be true if you were to say he was.
in referance to philosophy, the "truth" is in referance to the nature of reality, and the purpouse for it as well.
-
Actually Kant at the end of his life wrote a little thing about the impossibility of a real theodicy. Admitted his own system was flawed. Brilliant though as Schopenahuer, Nietzsche and Hegel all built their own philosophy on his. Hume is a spectical philosopher: actually one of the only anglo-saxon philosophers worth something with Emerson. Never dug into William James. I'm not a man of faith and metaphysics are actually a matter of faith.
Nietzsche = overrated
-
But the thing is those people only thought they knew the "truth." The actual truth was something else. People thinking something, doesn't make it a truth.
Okay I see were you are going with this - thats quite nice and I haven't spend enough time thinking about it.
But I will later on.
So okay so right and wrong has to be than time based.
-
I just read Catch-22. It's my goal to read the 100 greatest english and non english novels of all time. I'm about 3 books in! ;D
Currently reading "Chariots of the Gods" about the world being populated by aliens thousands of years ago. my wife got it for me as a joke because that fucking "ancient aliens" show is on the history channel all the time and they keep mentioning the book. but i don't like having a book on a bookshelf i haven't read, so i'm leafing through it as i'm dropping juicy steamers in the shitter.
lol!
-
Actually Kant at the end of his life wrote a little thing about the impossibility of a real theodicy. Admitted his own system was flawed. Brilliant though as Schopenahuer, Nietzsche and Hegel all built their own philosophy on his. Hume is a spectical philosopher: actually one of the only anglo-saxon philosophers worth something with Emerson. Never dug into William James. I'm not a man of faith and metaphysics are actually a matter of faith.
kants system unworkable? ill read that later today if i have time, im off to surgery in 15 minutes for my knee.
william james. you should read him! brilliant psychologist/philospher. an american pragmatist.
your not a man of faith? well, let me make it easy for you. are you alive? what caused that to happen? there is a definite casual chain leading up to your life. where did that casual chain begin? if it exists, there must have been a beginning, for if there was no first cause, there would never have been an effect. :) :P
-
kants system unworkable? ill read that later today if i have time, im off to surgery in 15 minutes for my knee.
william james. you should read him! brilliant psychologist/philospher. an american pragmatist.
your not a man of faith? well, let me make it easy for you. are you alive? what caused that to happen? there is a definite casual chain leading up to your life. where did that casual chain begin? if it exists, there must have been a beginning, for if there was no first cause, there would never have been an effect. :) :P
Casual chain? Not for me. Too dialectical. I go with a more empirical approach. Back to Spinoza maybe.
-
Nietzsche = overrated
Thought so also. The read it again. Got to see past the whole "intense philosopher with a bad disease" and the "new prophet" cliché.
-
Thought so also. The read it again. Got to see past the whole "intense philosopher with a bad disease" and the "new prophet" cliché.
It has been awhile since i read him and I think he had some great insight into what drives people. He just gets referred to so often and I there are a number of men who should be mentioned well before he is.
-
It has been awhile since i read him and I think he had some great insight into what drives people. He just gets referred to so often and I there are a number of men who should be mentioned well before he is.
Yes but he said it himself. He did put himself as coming from a certain trend that should be known before.
-
books piss me off...
bench
-
books piss me off...
bench
:D
-
done that
Also Arnold's book about his life is worth reading as well
What's it called? I'll order it...
-
books piss me off...
bench
bench, do you keep coloring outside the lines? ;D
-
bench, do you keep coloring outside the lines? ;D
yes.....
bench
-
yes.....
bench
i bet it's your giant sized paws!
-
>:(
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4125-E0QhnL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
-
Casual chain? Not for me. Too dialectical. I go with a more empirical approach. Back to Spinoza maybe.
spinoza. hes good. the 'perfect' pantheist imo. i dont agree with him though. did you know he changed his name, he was originally benedictus, then baruch.
the causal chain argument, or otherwise known as a variation of the cosmological argument, is definitely very dialectic. but so is every argument possible. in order for an argument to be communicated, it must be put into language (dialect). ;)
-
kants system unworkable? ill read that later today if i have time, im off to surgery in 15 minutes for my knee.
william james. you should read him! brilliant psychologist/philospher. an american pragmatist.
your not a man of faith? well, let me make it easy for you. are you alive? what caused that to happen? there is a definite casual chain leading up to your life. where did that casual chain begin? if it exists, there must have been a beginning, for if there was no first cause, there would never have been an effect. :) :P
People claim that William James was the last original thinker. Since him, most other theories have built upon the works of others. Will James was pretty original in his thoughts and ideas.
-
I am interested in psychology and sociology but never received an eduction which would have lead me to read these books when
I was younger.
This is a great book on basic sociology:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essentials-Sociology-Down---Earth-Approach/dp/0205676081/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280566439&sr=1-2
-
wow some background - I cannot "compete" with that, I am a qualified zookeeper :D - serious
What animals did you look after, Stark? If I ever come into lots of money, I'd volunteer at a zoo or wildlife park.
Have you read Day By Day Armageddon by J. L. Bourne yet? It's not a bad read, but a bit short and not as good as the reviews on amazon would have you believe.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Armageddon-J-L-Bourne/dp/1849831580/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Armageddon-J-L-Bourne/dp/1849831580/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b)
-
Gaiman is the author. Ever read The Sandman?
-
The only book everyone on earth should be reading and will be reading.
yep
-
The Art of War by Sun Tzu. 8)
-
Gaiman is the author. Ever read The Sandman?
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/141736726_10159549146718949_7025463676695376917_o.png?_nc_cat=1&ccb=2&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=zLkfKfVa-rcAX81Vlh8&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=517b73bc1d09084e906f92689c85100a&oe=6039D157)
The Sandman: Netflix Adaptation Casts Tom Sturridge, Gwendoline Christie And More
With the show shooting now, there’s a chance we could see something by the end of 2021, or perhaps more likely in 2022. In the meantime, Audible is currently adapting the comics in a massive multi-part audiobook production, with an epic cast including James McAvoy as Dream, Taron Egerton as John Constantine, Michael Sheen as Lucifer, and many more besides, adapted and directed by Dirk Maggs.
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/sandman-netflix-adaptation-cast-tom-sturridge-gwendoline-christie/?fbclid=IwAR235DZqPQ1Yy18rkMYAa0VTep4AImx_4K6uhmSol78XuEiL_o9ENZPiCkM
-
The Sandman | First Look
-
(https://cdn.onebauer.media/one/media/620d/08f7/edd3/6b3b/668c/4745/the-sandman-excl.jpg?format=jpg&quality=80&width=850&ratio=1-1&resize=aspectfit)
https://www.empireonline.com/tv/news/netflix-sandman-series-all-about-surprising-you-neil-gaiman-exclusive/?fbclid=IwAR1yMMwLIINDcHOmEIOzlpP_UCn2G9CytCqx5D7AqK60vZw-Q5rS-S5v-lI
-
The Sandman | Official Trailer
-
People on getbig know how to read?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=453058.0