Books

[Le Communard]

Actually, I've already read Norwegian Wood and Kafka on the Shore, so I at least have dent in Murakami.

[kasumi]

^Another work that I'll recommend probably is Ono Fuuyumi's Juuni Kokki/ Twelve Kingdom - which I think has been translated to English? It's a bit like Romance of Three Kingdom-esque type of story, which I think is pretty good.

Then again, if you're into Chinese classic literature, Romance of Three Kingdom and Water Margin are a must, I think.

[Erk]

I have got to say, I am loving "The Last of The Mohicans" Pretty slow in the start, but really picks up. And Hawkeye is just the epitome of badassery.

[Suzaku]

I enjoy reading Jack Higgins. He is a pretty good thriller writer. My favorite books by him is Angel of Death, and Without Mercy. Pretty good reads.

[Wander]

Got The Sword of Shannara (first 3 books) for Christmas today. I'm enjoying it so far, but it reeks a bit too much of just being a modernized Lord of the Rings in some ways. Maybe not all, and I'm not very far in so I can't judge it properly, but the base characters are at least a bit similar.

The rest of what I read is stuff I'm a bit ashamed of, in that most of them are just running series that I've kept up with for 5 years and are more books for 12 year olds then high school kids. What? It's not my fault I enjoy them...

[Le Communard]

Moved on to the Analytic Philosophers over break. I'm reading Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Husslers Philosophie der Arithmetik, as well as a slightly unrelated re-reading of Goethe's Faust, Part I. What a classic story--I can't just be help blown away every by the sublime beauty of Goethe's verse. There's just something so moving the way he has with words--with such skill does he craft the torment and spiritual void of Faustus's existence I'm entranced every time.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Le Communard

[Hero]

Moved on to the Analytic Philosophers over break. I'm reading Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Husslers Philosophie der Arithmetik, as well as a slightly unrelated re-reading of Goethe's Faust, Part I. What a classic story--I can't just be help blown away every by the sublime sublime beauty of Goethe's verse. There's just something so moving the way he has with words--with such skill does he craft the torment and spiritual void of Faustus's existence I'm moved every time.

I couldn't agree more. A few years ago I was entranced by authors like Jack London and James Joyce, but today even the best of classics of 20th century literature like Ulysses seem hollow to me. Faust really blew me away the first time I read it, and every time I go through it again I feel like I learn something new. I just finished a reread of Faust in the original German a few weeks ago, and the weather at the time and the stress connected with my finals, which were just coming up, helped me see the central theme of temptation in the story from a whole new dimension.

In fact, it's hard to imagine how I appreciated it at all when I read it in English. Goethe's genius is palpable even through translations, but even the most perfect translation involves an element of interpretation and obscures it that much more. The same goes for Kant: If it were up to me all the English copies of his works would be burned. With a reward like Kant waiting for you, the difficulty of language learning becomes almost immaterial.

Facilis descensus averni.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Héroe

[Le Communard]

Facilis descensus averni.

Untranslated Latin? Funny, for someone who claims to be so critical of the Modernists, you engage in such Modernists pastiche. If there's one thing in this world I cant stand its the kind of hypocrites like you on their high horses, who try and play the world like a fiddle. Disgusting. While I appreciate that you know your Goethe, I'm not sure you actually understand it.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Le Communard

[Hero]

Untranslated Latin? Funny, for someone who claims to be so critical of the modernists, you engage in such modernists pastiches.

It was an integral part of my argument, and I am sure that any here with skill in languages will understand its relevance.

If there's one thing in this world I cant stand its the kind of hypocrites like you on their high horses, who try and play the world like a fiddle. Disgusting. Well I appreciate that you know you Goethe, I'm not sure you actually understand it.

That is a very bold charge to make, if not one I wouldn't have expected from one of Murakami's sycophants. I do not see how I could disprove it on this forum, however, so I will live you with this: Tu quoque.

[Le Communard]

It was an integral part of my argument, and I am sure that any here with skill in languages will understand its relevance.

Exactly the sort of Modernist arrogance that incenses me. Can't you even see past your own nose? You're all so enamored of your own intelligence its disgusting. This discussion is over.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Le Communard

[Hero]

Exactly the sort of Modernist arrogance that incenses me. Can't you even see past your own nose. You're all so enamored of your own intelligence its disgusting. This discussion is over.

This sort of blind rejectionism disappoints me. I would have thought that you were beyond this. From the substance of your post, it is clear that you've been reading my writing with the veracity of your own argument and the falsity of mine already well-established in your mind. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you have done nothing to hide this impression.

The issue with this approach is that your working definition of truth is likely to be different from mine. It is possible to logically define truth, but there are several ways to go about this, which of course lead to subtly different definitions. The key word, though, is logical positivism. Without going through the process of creating a definition of truth which is acceptable to both of us, we can make the same argument against each other and not even know it. I can help walk you through the process, if you need it.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Héroe

[Le Communard]

This sort of blind rejectionism disappoints me. I would have thought that you were beyond this. From the substance of your post, it is clear that you've been reading my writing with the veracity of your own argument and the falsity of mine already well-established in your mind. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you have done nothing to hide this impression.

The issue with this approach is that your working definition of truth is likely to be different from mine. It is possible to logically define truth, but there are several ways to go about this, which of course lead to subtly different definitions. The key word, though, is logical positivism. Without going through the process of creating a definition of truth which is acceptable to both of us, we can make the same argument against each other and not even know it. I can help walk you through the process, if you need it.

Engage in your positivist fantasies all you want--it is self evident that your "truth" is a lie. You construct fortresses of your own circular logic and then insist that you have somehow found "the way". The universe can't be reduced to a series of abstract conceptions--everything about your "truth" kills what is the soul of life. You seek to deny and shut out the truth of existence with your small minded quibbling about degree and definition. Life itself rebels against the tyranny of your pettiness.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Le Communard

[Hero]

Engage in your positivist fantasies all you want--your "truth" is a lie. You construct fortresses of your own circular logic and then insist that you have somehow found "the way". The universe can't be reduced to a series of abstract conceptions--everything about your "truth" kills what is the soul of the universe. You seek to deny and shut out the truth of existence with your small minded quibbling about degree and definition. Life itself rebels against the tyranny of your pettiness.

Circular reasoning has its place: Sometimes it is only on the second circuit of an idea that the way towards greater truth becomes apparent.

The only thing that is self-evident is that truth is not a lie, unless you mean something different from what I thought by the word "lie". I can't help but note that you still have not made any effort to define your terms. Confucius touched on this issue in his Analects, and practically every great analytic thinker since has disagreed with you, but I'll keep this simple so you understand. The dichotomy between truth and lie is ingrained even on the very structure of the human brain. If it weren't, how could polygraph machines be effective?

[Le Communard]

Circular reasoning has its place: Sometimes it is only on the second circuit of an idea that the way towards greater truth becomes apparent.

The only thing that is self-evident is that truth is not a lie, unless you mean something different from what I thought by the word "lie". I can't help but note that you still have not made any effort to define your terms. Confucius touched on this issue in his Analects, and practically every great analytic thinker since has disagreed with you, but I'll keep this simple so you understand. The dichotomy between truth and lie is ingrained even on the very structure of the human brain. If it weren't, how could polygraph machines be effective?

Yeah well, you be that way... meanie.

[Excellen Browning]

I usually read books about the philosophy of life. Also various books on psychology. Tried Nietzsche and found it almost impossible to read through, read and at various points agree with Machiavelli. Tried reading a book by Sonya Lyubomirsky and found she doesn't do whatever she set out to do. She sets out to prove that various forms of self help therapies can be very effective and all she does, at best, is name some empirical evidence, while leaving out the behind-lying mechanisms.

Also I recently read Lolita. I didn't see any of the black humor most people say it has, but it certainly is a very well-written tale and very enjoyable.