This collection contains 26 different stories of what is like to be a brother. Although the quality was not always first rate, I did find most to be vThis collection contains 26 different stories of what is like to be a brother. Although the quality was not always first rate, I did find most to be very interesting. Some were funny (like David Sedaris story) and many very sad and reflective. I especially found the different writers to be authentic and often portrayed ideals from this period (most were about growing up in the 50's and 60's). There was often tragedy involved (one about having a brother in jail, another about accidentally killing your brother, and a third about taking care of someone who is mentally ill). I found myself thinking how comforting it can be to believe in God when you experience tragedies of this magnetude. Frank McCourt wrote the foreword which isn't really a foreword more an autobiographical depiction of his life with his brothers (also the least interesting story in the collection). ...more
Michael Easter has written a book where he tries to combine self-help, science and his own development as a person. It's mostly about his adventures aMichael Easter has written a book where he tries to combine self-help, science and his own development as a person. It's mostly about his adventures and his struggles with alcohol. I couldn't be bothered to finish it as his advice and his key takeaways from the scientific literature felt rather shallow. His thesis? We've become too comfortable today and don't need to fight to survive. The consequences of this are enormous and are seen everywhere: from relationships to mental health to physical strength. His answer? Misogi. Two rules of misogi: 1. Do something which is slightly eccentric and where the failure rate is 50%. 2. Don't die.
I like that idea the best although Easter has a tenency to turn this into a form of identity. If you're saying to yourself: I'm feeling lazy, unmotivated and would like to lead a more adventurous life. Embracing discomfort could be a way out of that. But still I don't think you need to go from 0 to 100 as the authors personal journey would suggest.
In the middle of reading about his journey into 33 day journey into Alaska I realized that I wasn't that impressed with that journey either. If you have no experience of living in the wild then I understand how that could sound amazing. I, on the other hand, went on a similar journey this summer to the north of Sweden. I didn't however, believe that journey gave enough material to write a book. But hey, if people become more motivated by reading this book or listening to his interviews on podcasts I'm all for it. Who am I to judge? I just don't think that you should abandon your own personality in order to become some sort of ideal you read about in books. Also: misogi is not supposed to be something you tell people online or write about. Isn't he therefore breaking an unwritten code of misogi? A bit of a braggadocio. Having said that, I am grateful that he gave me this because I don't think I would have found it on my own. ...more
Imagine fighting a war in 30 to 40 minus degrees celsius, changing your clothes every other week and challenged with bouts of diarrhea. The author manImagine fighting a war in 30 to 40 minus degrees celsius, changing your clothes every other week and challenged with bouts of diarrhea. The author managed to capture the true horror of this war as well as the impact of war on the lives of soldiers. This is the biography of a psychopath during the Finnish winter war. ...more
Norms have become the focus of my attention lately as I have been reading about culture and how one regulates human behavior. In the contemporary poliNorms have become the focus of my attention lately as I have been reading about culture and how one regulates human behavior. In the contemporary political parlance norms are seen as a hindrance to the freedom of the individual. I therefore welcome this book by an associate professor at the University of Houston. How can one bring up such an outdated concept as honor in hope of defending it?
It is perhaps easiest to start the discussion of this book with two different ways of viewing human behavior in society. The WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic) societies have a dignity-based view of society. “The individual can only discover his true identity by emancipating himself from his socially enclosed roles – the latter are only masks, entangling him in illusion, alienation, and bad faith” (p.26) Sommers then goes on to say that “[by] rejecting the primacy of social structures both formal and informal, dignity offers more freedom – indeed unlimited freedom – for individuals to determine their own values and identities.” (p. 28) This sounds lofty and well but with it comes certain problems such as personal accountability, risk-aversion and a growing lack of community. What happens when an individual crosses a norms and boundaries? How are we as a society supposed to handle such transgressions? There are no formal rules to handle such indecent behavior and indeed often dignity based cultures tend to avoid conflict at every cost possible. We try to avoid conflicts until they become unbearable. One example is how the media handled the attack on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons; they didn’t dare print the religious caricatures which had offended the islamists who had perpetrated the attack. They made no real attempt to defend the freedom of speech which is the foundation of a free society. And why would they? Would you want to risk your life for the greater good?
Compare this scenario with how one handles conflicts in an honor based society. “Conflicts […] are opportunities for “norm clarification.” […] Conflicts can illuminate the presence of norms that were previously unknown, unarticulated or even undetermined. Resolution rituals allow communities to explore normative commitments and expectations in a lively, active way.” (p. 92) In order to garner the respect of one’s environment one needs to stand up for oneself. Otherwise one will face high social cost and risk being called a coward. I have had a somewhat ambivalent relationship to these kinds of communities. Having worked in sales for a couple of years I can very easily relate to how individuals purposefully put themselves into a hierarchy and compete amongst them to earn maximal respect. Sommers describes two types of honor: horizontal – “that [honor is] distributed equally to all group members. Another is that it is not tied to a specific action or achievement” (p.18) and vertical which involves members of a group competing for honor through action.
Questions of honor also provide an interesting solution to the question of free will. Having practically read all of Sam Harris books one is bound to come out on the hard determinist side of the issue. This has however led me to other questions such as: how do we handle criminals given that they have no free will? Is it ethically viable to punish someone given that they had no control over their actions? Societies which revolve around honor view this as a non-question. “Indeed, many regard it as shameful to make excuses by appealing to a lack of control. In honor cultures, taking responsibility is a bedrock moral principle” You are presumed to have control over your actions and therefore you are more careful with how you act in public. This provides boundaries to human behavior.
Although Sommers doesn’t go into detail on the subject he also discusses the idea of retributive justice (which is integral to understanding the notion of honor). This reminded me of the Austrian economist Murray Rothbards discussion of the same issue which can be summarized as the ancient concept of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. This may seem odd to modern day people who are accustomed to an impartial view of justice where a punishment is supposed to be determined in an ‘objective’ way by a judge. If you however view all law as basically being civil law then it would make sense for individuals to base their punishment on par with the injury. “Let the punishment fit the crime” as they say. This evaluation of a punishment does not make it more arbitrary however as the punishment has to be accepted by the community at large. This provides a framework in which justice can be served.
I found this book to be written in a conversational way with a lot of references to both high and low culture. Sommers manages to provide an overall philosophical defense of honor and in doing so makes us think more about the machinations of our modern society. I would recommend it to anyone interested in psychology and gang behavior....more
"After an examination the surgeon pronounced my skull intact, ordered me a bottle of champagne and told me that by miracle a machine-gun bullet had go"After an examination the surgeon pronounced my skull intact, ordered me a bottle of champagne and told me that by miracle a machine-gun bullet had gone straight through the back of my head without touching a vital part." [p. 76]
This is one of the best books I've read this year and it is impossible to do justice to this war memoir (but I will try nevertheless). For those of you who have never heard of lieutenant general Adrian Carton de Wiart I can say that "unkillable british soldier" perhaps comes closest to home. He was a solider who participated in three wars (Boer war, WW1, WW2) and got shot in the groin, head, eye (twice), stomache, and fingers (which he had to amputate them himself).
One should of course be critical of the memoir as he de Wiart notes in the beginning that he has not kept a diary throughout the years. This book is based purely on his recollections of his life and what a life it was! He born in Belgium (son a nobleman) but grew up in Egypt and was sent to school in England where he managed to fit in by his being great at sports. He eventually went to Oxford but decided that it was not for him so he enlisted in the army (even though he was underage). This was apparently easy as the "recruiting office was pandemonium and only too eager for fresh young blood" [p. 17]
Thus began his life as a soldier. Reading this book it seemed as though every page contained an event which would be extraordinary for any other person beside Carton de Wiart. His command of the English language was staggering and I found (much to my own chagrin) that I had to have a dictionary perpetually at hand as new words popped up. He occasionally used words such as Shikari, in an off hand way as if modern readers would know that thats an Indian hunter.
His prose is surprisingly entertaining and refreshing. It has something of the stiff upper lip quality to it combined with an absence of any sort of moralizing (so common today). There were several revealing instances which give the modern reader a picture of a premodern gentleman warrior. For instance: "At that moment I knew, once and for all, that war was in my blood. I was determined to fight and I didn't mind who or what. I didn't know why the war had started and didn't care on which side I was to fight. If the British didn't fancy me I would offer myself to the Boers" [p. 16] His honest view of politicians is also entertaining as he often reflects that he doesn't understand politics; "[...] I never felt that the whys and wherefores are a soldier's business. To me war and politics seem bad mixers, like port and champagne. But if its wasn't for the politicians we wouldn't have wars, and I, for one, should have been done out of what is for me a very agreeable life" [p. 175]
Seen from this perspective he has a lot in common with his German contemporary Ernst Jünger who relished war as an opportunity to really live on the edge. I believe that this is a romantic view of war where one needs the advent of the extreme event of war in order to value life and its extreme beauty. While I agree that war certainly value life more, it is possible to do this in other contexts as well. Nevertheless it is interesting to read this account as one gets a better understanding of what drives men to war. The camaraderie. The vivid experiences. The thrill of it.
I often thought how different war was then compared to how it is now. One need only watch a video of ISIS cutting off someones head to realize the ruthlessness which has become the new face of war. Perhaps it was always that way. Carton de Wiart often treats (at least according to his own memories) POWs well and is also treated well as a POW himself. There is in general a gentlemanly understand of how war should be fought. But in the midst of World War 2 the lieutenant general makes the following realization: "I saw the very face of war change - bereft of romance, its glory shorn, no longer the soldier setting forth into battle, but women and children buried under it" [p. 156]. War is no longer a gentlemanly activity but one which is ruthless and crushes everything around it.
His view of death was also of interest as well as his sense of pride. Once in the memoir he considered committing suicide rather than be taken as a prisoner by the enemy (as he held a high profile within the British army). He therefore writes:
"Often in my life I have thought that I might be killed, and though death has no attraction for me, I regard it more or less phlegmatically, People who enjoy life seldom have much fear of death, and having taken the precaution to squeeze the lemon do not grudge throwing the rind away. But never, even in the innermost recesses of my mind, had I contemplated being taken prisoner" [p. 183]
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in understanding in getting a new perspective on war as well as new insights into mind of nobility near the turn of last century. In my mind he remains an adventurer and a man intent on ravishing life. Or as he puts it: "I wanted life in the raw, rough and tough and full of bitter experiences [...]...more
A bit uneven but some parts were brilliant. Even though it reads much like an adventure story (by the time he was 25 he had been in 4 different wars oA bit uneven but some parts were brilliant. Even though it reads much like an adventure story (by the time he was 25 he had been in 4 different wars on several continents), it also contains nuggets of wisdom. Churchill did not go to university (although he trained as an officer at Sandhurst); instead he decided to study by himself and try to reach conclusions which seems to accomodate his specific personality.
"The human brain cannot comprehend infinity, but the discovery of mathematics enables it to be handled quite easily. The idea that nothing is true except what we comprehend is silly, and that ideas which our minds cannot reconcile are mutually destructive, sillier still. Certainly nothing could be more repulsive to both our minds and feelings than the spectacle of thousands of millions of universes - for that is what they say it comes to now - all knocking about together for ever without any rational or good purpose behind them. I therefore adopted quite early in life a system of believing watever I wanted to believe, while at the same time leaving reason to pusure unfettered whatever paths she was capable of treading"
So much for the multiverse! I think about this when people discuss whether we are living in a simulation or not. How can we ever know? What use is it to ponder such things if they are ultimately unknowable? I was really inspired by his heroic worldview as shown in both of these quotes:
"It is that lure of youth - adventure, and adventure for adventure's sake. You might call it toomfoolery. To travel thousands of miles with money one could ill afford, and get up at four c'clock in the morning in the hope of getting into a scrape in the company of perfect strangers, is certainly hardly a rational proceeding."
And this one:
"When I look back upon them I cannot but return my sincere thanks to the high gods for the gift of existence. All the days were good and each day better than the other. Ups and downs risks and journeys, but always the sense of motion, and the illusion of hope. Come on now all you young men, all over the world. You are needed more than ever now to fill the gap of a generation shorn by the War. You have not an hour to lose. You must take your places in life's fighting line. Twenty to twenty-five! These are the years! Don't be content with things as they are. The earth is yours and the fulness thereof. Raise the glorious flags again, advance them upon the new enemies, who contanstanyl gather upon the front of the human army, and have only to be assaulted to be overthrown. Don't take No for an answer. Never submit to failure. Do not be fobbed off with mere personal success or acceptance. You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true, and also fierce, you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her. She was made to be wooed and won by youth. She has lived and thrived only by repeated subjugations"
I fully agree with you mr. Churchill. The sheer power of optimism and heroism in the proceeding paragraph is inspiring and perhaps much needed in today's cynical world....more
Although many have tried to define masculinity, it still remains an elusive concept. Many perhaps associate it with the alpha male or Clint Eastwood iAlthough many have tried to define masculinity, it still remains an elusive concept. Many perhaps associate it with the alpha male or Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. One sees a powerful man doing what he believes is right, regardless of what other people think. This image, however enchanting, is according to the author Jack Donovan an incomplete picture of what it implies to be a man. Donovan views masculinity as arising as a survival mechanism: in order to survive in the jungle we have to cooperate and create a tribe. We survive by creating within this tribe a hierarchy and also an external enemy.
How manly a person is depends on four virtues: honor, strength, mastery and courage. These four virtues are essential for the survival of the group and they are therefore highly valued by the group. The more you master a certain skill, the more helpful you can be to the group.
Alright, you might say, that may be true in jungle, but we live in a highly civilized world where our survival is not constantly threatened by external forces. Donovan believes that since we have evolved as a species with a clan mentality it is also our most natural state of being. We are not individuals in the wild, but each part of a tribe. As men suppress these deep desires they are basically going against their own nature, or to quote Kipling:
"For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack."
Even though I find his critique of todays society and spot on at times, the question nevertheless remains: who in their right mind would want to return to a clan-like society? Even though I find the concept of masculinity appealing and exploring it has a certain value to me, I tend to side with Waller Newells western view of what it means to be a man which he defines as "honor tempered by prudence, ambition tempered by compassion for the suffering and the oppressed, love restrained by delicacy and honor toward the beloved"
Joyce Carol Oates is one of my favorite authors (who I oddly enough haven't read that much). I thought this book was a bit too long and could certainlJoyce Carol Oates is one of my favorite authors (who I oddly enough haven't read that much). I thought this book was a bit too long and could certainly have been shortened. Despite this fact it was a wonderful read and Oates has a way of seeing society through the lens of language which is just... dazzling!
'On boxing' manages to take a critical view of society's changing views on what it means to be a man and what the consequences of those changes are. Manliness is one of my key interests which naturally drew me to this book. ...more
It is odd to read the Odyssey after one has read some of the Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feynmans work. Feynman was very much for critical tIt is odd to read the Odyssey after one has read some of the Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feynmans work. Feynman was very much for critical thinking and against religious dogma. One should be able to question everything and therefore it is quite weird to be thrown into a world where Gods are in fact omnipresent. It seemed to me like a pre-socratic world was laid open to my eyes and through the sheer power of its language I was thrown in. I had set my mind on reading this work, not expecting greatness... oh how I underestimated this classic!
Spoilers ahead!
Roughly half of the epic follows Odysseus attempt to return to his home (Ithaka) after Troy has been destroyed and the second half follows his revenge of the suitors who wish to marry his wife Penelope. What is the Odyssey about? What is the meaning of the work? I interpret it as a work as great storytelling created to explain the virtues of its time - loyalty, fidelity, courage, strength and cunning. These virtues are evidently shared by most of the characters Odysseys meet and those who fail to live up to them often end up meeting a gruesome death.
Neither the work nor its values have in a sense aged seeing how much the Odyssey common with many films made today (John Wick for example). The difference I would say is the extent to which a protagonist will go to achieve his goal. Odysseus can be quite ruthless at times and when he does go on a rampage I found his practical wisdom (i.e. the aristotelean word "phronesis") lacking, seeing as how the Gods had to intervene in order to stop further bloodshed.
I did find myself thinking about the epic many days after I finished reading it and when wandering out in nature thought: how would the pre-socratic Greeks experience this park? Would they consciously think about how present the Olympic Gods are every moment? Perhaps not every moment but once something out of the ordinary would happen they would interpret it within the current religious framework.
All in all a great read. I might read the Illiad next, we'll see!...more
Loading...
