Book tip of the month

[~UN_$ung~]

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/

[Mr Nobody]

What are you implying?

Nothing I'm sincerely interested not knocking it..

[dr.chimps]

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

[Stark]

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/

May I also promote and suggest you read "the turner diaries"

[~UN_$ung~]

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


it like black people not liking the movie "Roots"...............lol...... ........but honestly, i found it to be just OK

[Stark]

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


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.

[MORTALCOIL]

[~UN_$ung~]

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

[MORTALCOIL]

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.

[Stark]

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.

[Parker]

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.

[Stark]

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.

[MORTALCOIL]

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.

[Stark]

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.

[MORTALCOIL]

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.

[Stark]

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?

[MORTALCOIL]

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.

[tbombz]

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.

[Parker]

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?  

[tbombz]

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.

[Stark]

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 - serious

[tbombz]

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

[MORTALCOIL]

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.

[tbombz]

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

[MORTALCOIL]

wow some background - I cannot "compete" with that, I am a qualified zookeeper - 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.