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
This book covers 8 core ideas (democracy, sovereignty, justice, constitution, virtue, citizenship, republic, cosmopolitanism), all of which we share wThis book covers 8 core ideas (democracy, sovereignty, justice, constitution, virtue, citizenship, republic, cosmopolitanism), all of which we share with the ancient Greeks and Romans. I thought it would draw more parallells between the ancients and us moderns but, unfortunately, it is more of a history lesson in how these essential concept came about. I found that the author sometimes generalized a tad too much (such as when writing how Athens also had an empire even though its focus was clearly on trade in comparison with how Spartans colonized their surrounding poleis).
I enjoyed Lane's discussion around hubris and how the Greeks tried to circumvent it. The Greeks (and later Romans) experimented with statesmanscraft and for them there existed three models: monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. I found the development of Athens to be most interesting (although to be fair Syracuse also had a large poleis which later developed into a democracy). The question is: how should power be distributed? What is just? The culture seems to be bubbling with discussions of this sort and the theatre of the period is but one example of how key issues were explored. In this sense, theatre was a political as well as social and philosophical activity which citizens of the Ancient world enjoyed. But to get back to my main point: the Greeks asked themselves how one could tame (or civilize) hubris by distributing power in a more egalitarian way. Leaders should be held accountable for their actions (this was key). Athenian democracy often developed as a consequence of inner turmoil and the leaders (Solon, Cleisthenes, Pericles) thought of innovative methods for minimizing conflict in society. The Greeks knew the risks of too much polarization (which they called 'stasis') and the democratic reforms was often a way of avoiding turmoil.
One example of this is Cleisthenes redrawing of the citizen map of Athens. The reform meant that a citizen belonged to a local demos but one was also a part of a larger "tribe". To put this into modern perspective: it would be as if innercity poor democrats nad to mix with country republicans. Cleisthenes thus created a tribe by fusing together demos scattered all over Athens. A citizen therefore belonged to his demos, his tribe and lastly, of course the city of Athens. In later stages Athenians chose to elect leaders based on voting (generals and experts were elected in this way). But aside from those leaders most people who ran the city were elected by lottery. The person who then was elected had to be held accountable after his tenure. If a citizen was deemed a threat to the system they could be exiled for 10 years (which was only done 110 times in roughly 600 years). All these methods combined to combat hubris. Oh and it goes without saying that they didn't have any political parties. Those were the days!
Lane does a good job in explaining the pros and cons of this system but for further understanding of what made the Greeks thrive I would recommend reading "The rise and fall of Classical Greece" by Joshiah Ober. ...more
"The Greeks had got it right, he said. Their drama was a communal act, a sacred event, in which the ancient stories of the tribe were played out, enab"The Greeks had got it right, he said. Their drama was a communal act, a sacred event, in which the ancient stories of the tribe were played out, enabling the audience to confront the deepest, most sublime and most terrible truths of human life, producing a profound, an overwhelming, release - a catharsis - which was the whole point of the drama"
Simon Callow has managed to write an entertaining and often surreal portrait of Wagner as a man. It doesn't go as deep as the work by Magee or Scruton but if you are looking for a brief book which provides an overview of his life, you've come to the right place. Callow has a tendency to believe Wagner too much though since this biography heavily relies on Wagners own biography, My life. Having said that it is incredible what a dramatic life he lead and what he managed to accomplish. He was an inveterate gambler who took enormous risks and somehow managed to come out winning in the end. I wouldn't say he was a particularly likeable person. He seems more to attract people to him by his sheer force of personality and use them ruthlessly to accomplish his own goals.
Callow focuses on Wagner the dramatist and therefore gives a shallower account of what he actually read. I suppose that you can read Bryan Magee if you want to know more about that. Seeing as how I was interested in how Wagner managed to dramatise his ideas, this was a rewarding read. I do think it is hard to understand Wagner without understanding the music as the two often go hand in hand. All in all, an entertaining read. ...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
In this very short book the indian sage Ramana Maharshi goes through what is needed to become enlightened. Its quite succinct and can be summarised inIn this very short book the indian sage Ramana Maharshi goes through what is needed to become enlightened. Its quite succinct and can be summarised in the following way: For each thought arising ask "where did this thought come from?" and "Who is thinking these thoughts?". After practicing and continually coming back to the self ones thoughts begin to dissipate. When one no longer have any ego-thoughts, one is liberated. I have just recently begun practicing self-enquiry but it seems like the shortest way to break through the ego. Very exciting book! I would recommend it to anyone interested in spirituality or psychology....more
This is a dry read and I therefore found it a bit too boring at times. I decided to read the most important parts which was ethics, poetics and his geThis is a dry read and I therefore found it a bit too boring at times. I decided to read the most important parts which was ethics, poetics and his general view of science. I definitely want to read more about Aristotle as I find his view quite original and a good contrast to more modern ethical thinkers. ...more
Rupert Spira is a teacher of non-duality (advaita vedanta as it is called in the East). This is a summary of Spiras talks on youtube. When reading hisRupert Spira is a teacher of non-duality (advaita vedanta as it is called in the East). This is a summary of Spiras talks on youtube. When reading his words they somehow become more flat than when listening to him answering a question. Spira lays out a clear explanation of why there is just Awareness and why the perception that there exist a subject-object relation is illusory. Awareness is simply there; we just fail to notice it most of the time which is why the book is called being aware of being aware. Thoughts, sensations, and perceptions are a part of our awareness but we these things manage to trick us into believing that the person writing this review is real. In fact writing is just happening. There is really no one doing it.
I have to admit that I have yet to fully grasp the implications of non-duality and especially the consequences it will have on my life (if it is true). I would recommend viewing Spiras talks on youtube first and foremost if one is interested in learning more about non-duality. ...more
This proved to be a frustrating read. The advantage being that it managed to illuminate many of my disagreements with Annaka and her husband, Sam HarrThis proved to be a frustrating read. The advantage being that it managed to illuminate many of my disagreements with Annaka and her husband, Sam Harris.
"Conscious" is supposed to be a 'brief guide to the fundamental mystery of the mind' but all too often ends in up simplifying complex problems. To start off her definition of what is conscious leaves one unfulfilled. She uses Thomas Nagels definition from his essay "what is it like to be a bat" wherein Nagel famously asserts that “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism." So for example a rock doesn't have a subjective experience, whereas being a bat would give one a quite unique experience of the world. I don't mind that definition but I don't think its perhaps a strong enough definition to lend itself to deeper philosophical and scientific discussion.
Annaka then uses David Chalmers famous zombie argument to further explore what consciousness is. Chalmers says that we can imagine a world where humans do everything as we normally do but where we don't have any subjective (that is to say conscious) experience of the world. Humans in this world are philosophical zombies. Even though Annaka admits that this just a hypothetical situation, she still uses it to prove her somewhat murky views of the universe. She thinks (and uses some scientific research to prove this) that consciousness doesn't have a function: we are merely under the illusion that our subjective "I" is doing really anything at all. So why are we conscious? I must say I find this line of reasoning a tad absurd as it might well be reasonable to think that consciousness is a consequence of our evolution. As living organisms develop instincts in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, their brains and therefore their consciousness also increases. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. And yet, to mrs. Harris consciousness is this mysterious thing which seems to be unexplainable. I would also add that I believe that we don't really need to like the explanation for consciousness for it to be a sound and scientific one. Our brains and instincts are not adapted to understand (intuitively) the explanations which science gives us.
The author then proceeds to panpsychism. As consciousness isn't doing anything in this world and as it remains a mystery, perhaps all things have some kind of consciousness built into them. If consciousness is just complex handling of information, then surely you can argue that even tiny bacteria are conscious in some sense of the word? The author usually singles out something in the universe and then extrapolates to the nth degree. To better understand my critique of her reasoning I will use an analogy. If I build a car, then it is the sum of all the parts that is the car. The parts of the car don't have any intrinsic car-nature to them. They only become a car because I organize different parts in a specific way. Consciousness can be similar to this as it cannot be explained by reducing it to a mere microbe. Mrs. Harris has a hard time accepting that the car analogy or strong emergence (as it is called in the scientific literature) is believable. Why would something suddenly spring into existence which was not there to begin with? I am not sure have an answer to that specific question but my spontaneous answer is that this is how humans work. We see the world this way as it makes common sense. If I sit on a chair, I am not worried that I will fall through it because of what quantum mechanics tell me about the world. Is there a chair nature to the different atoms in the chair? The Swedish author Lena Andersson has written about this specific problem and her explanation of the phenomenon is that we humans use abstract ideas to elucidate reality. There is no perfect chair, but there is an idea of the chair. That doesn't make the chair any less real. (This is based on her quite interesting reading of Plato).
Another question which pops up is in what way a tiny unicellular organism has an experience? Aren't we changing the definition of the word experience in order to make panpsychism theory more sound? ...more
Loading...
