Books

[Rosbjerg]

I was looking at "The Picture of Dorian Gray" which is on my shelf, which I've never read.. So I took it down and decided to read it.

Interesting read indeed! ^_^

"People know the price of everything but the value of nothing." I think its from that book, you are right it was an interesting read but way to homo erotic for my tastes. I mean seriously it was like subtle but still homosexual propaganda and such. Our teacher showed us the ending of the movie, pretty funny how horrible it was but the book was nice.

 

It's full of those kind of kinda quotes.. Oscar Wilde was very modern for his time - which was his demise. Very homo erotic indeed, it's unfortunate that the first version was edited, the most common publication is a heavy modification and the homosexuality is very downtoned. I don't mind, he was gay and as such (especially in context of the time he lived in) it's very natural that he would want to potray it this way.

[Darth Launch]

I've just started my recently-purchased copy of Edgar Allan Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Calax]

I've just started my recently-purchased copy of Edgar Allan Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

LAUNCHIE!!!! :pounce:

[metadigital]

Just finished volume one of The Greek Myths (Robert Graves); now I'm taking a small break from the relentless immaturity of the pre-Hellenic cultures (can be quite exhausting after 400 pages, though it is one of the most important books I've read, I think).

 

I'm re-reading (and taking notes and finishing, this time) Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, now, and already (he wrote this a decade before Graves wrote his seminal work) the background I gleaned from my previous reading is paying off handsomely (including Persian Fire and The Spartans).

 

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what Russell has written, so far, though it is interesting to read his opinions. (He did win the Nobel Prize for this work.)

[Fionavar]

Bruggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd Ed.

[Draken]

the wonderful thing about this thread is that no matter how brainy I think I am for attempting to read something from George Orwell or other such authors, it pales in comparison to whatever meta or Fionavar is reading. ^_^

 

I'm reading Chris Moore's The Stupidest Angel. It's version "2.0" so it includes an extra chapter full of the zany hijinks of Pine Cove's residents. Bliss.

[Lyric Suite]

Music in the Renaissance (Gustave Reese)

[LadyCrimson]

the wonderful thing about this thread is that no matter how brainy I think I am for attempting to read something from George Orwell or other such authors, it pales in comparison to whatever meta or Fionavar is reading. ^_^

My husband reads things like "The Metal Lathe," Physics & Gravity" and "How to build a telescope" while I'm sitting on the couch nostalgically reading "Castle Roogna" (Piers Anthony/Xanth). Hey, I loved Jumper the spider.

[Baley]

The Satanic Verses.

 

- Oh, yes, of course:

 

The city becomes vague, amorphous. It is becoming impossible to describe the world. Pilgrimage, prophet, adversary merge, fade into mists, emerge. As does she: Allie, Al-Lat. She is the exalted bird. Greatly to be desired. He remembers now: she told him, long ago, about Jumpy's poetry. He's trying to make a collection. A book. The thumb-sucking artist with his infernal views. A book is a product of a pact with the Devil that inverts the Faustian contract, he'd told Allie. Dr. Faustus sacrificed eternity in return for two dozen years of power; the writer agrees to the ruination of his life, and gains (but only if he's lucky) maybe not eternity, but posterity, at least. Either way (this was Jumpy's point) it's the Devil who wins.

 

What does a poet write? Verses. What jingle-jangles in Gibreel's brain? Verses. What broke his heart? Verses and again verses.

 

The trumpet, Azraeel, calls out from a greatcoat pocket: Pick me up! Yesyesyes: the Trump. To hell with it all, the whole sorry mess: just puff up your cheeks and root y-toot-toot. Come on, it's party time.

 

How hot it is: steamy, close, intolerable. This is no Proper London: not this improper city. Airstrip One, Mahagonny, Alphaville. He wanders through a confusion of languages. Babel: a contraction of the Assyrian "babilu". "The gate of God." Babylondon.

 

Where's this?

Edited April 9, 2007 by Baley

[metadigital]

Bruggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd Ed.

With the facet of interpretation, Brueggemann argues that the Bible requires and insists upon “human interpretation that is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional, and as [we] are living witnesses, inevitably disputatious.” Beyond the baseline of main claims or affirmations of Apostolic faith, we must attach only “tentative authority” to interpretations on almost all questions. He claims that Reformed interpretation too often has involved “a slight of hand act of substituting of our interpretive preference for the inherency of Apostolic claims.”

Ah, I just read this (vide sub) in Russell's History of Western Philosophy:

In AD66, the Jews, led by the party of the Zealots, rebelled against Rome. They were defeated, and Jerusalem was captured in AD70. The Temple was destroyed, and few Jews were left in Judea.

 

The Jews of the Dispersion [after the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722BC, up until Cyrus the Great issued an edict to allow them to return to Palestine in 537BC, and Jewish orthodoxy began to be crystalized] had become important centuries before this time. The Jews had been originally an almost wholly agricultural people, but they learnt trading from the Babylonians during their captivity. ... After the foundation of Alexandria, great numbers of Jews settled in that city; they had a special quarter assigned to them, not as a ghetto, but to keep them from danger of pollution by contact with gentiles. The Alexandrian Jews became much more hellenized than those of Judea, and forgot Hebrew. For this reason it became necessary to translate the Old Testament into Greek; the result was the Septuagint. The Pentateuch was translated in the middle of the third century BC; the other parts somewhat later.

 

Legends arose about the Septuagint, so called because it was the work of seventy translators. It was said that each of the seventy translated the whole independently, and that when the versions were compared they were found to be identical down to the smallest detail, having all been divinely inspired. Nevertheless, later scholarship showed that the Septuagint was gravely defective. The Jews, after the rise of Christianity, made little use of it, but reverted to reading the Old Testament in Hebrew. The early Christians, on the contrary, few of whom knew Hebrew, depended upon the Septuagint, or upon translations from it into Latin. A better text was produced by the labours of Origen in the third century, but those who only knew latin had very defective versions until Jerome, in the fifth century, produced the Vulgate. This was, at first, received with much criticism, because he had been helped by Jews in establishing the text, and many Christians thought that Jews had deliberately falsified the prophets in order that they should not seem to to foretell Christ.

 

Bertram also covers some interesting ground regarding the metaphysics of Plotinus that have been transplanted into Christianity, namely a Holy Trinity of The One, Spirit and Soul (distinct from the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit); these three are not equal, the One is supreme, Spirit comes next and Soul.

The One is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes the Good; it transcends Being, which is the first sequent upon the One. We must not attribute predicates to it, but only say 'It is.' (This is reminiscent of Parmenides.) It would be a mistake to speak of God as 'the All', because God transcends the All. God is present 'while it is nowhere, nowhere it is not'. Although the One is sometimes spoken of as the Good, we are also told it precedes both the Good and the Beautiful.[Fifth Ennead, Fifth Tractate, chap. 12] Sometimes, the One appears to resemble Aristotle's God; we are told that God has no need of His derivatives, and ignores the created world. The one is indefinable, and in regard to it there is more truth in silence than in any words whatever.

 

We now come to the Second Person, whom Plotinus calls nous. It is always difficult to find an English word to represent nous. ... Mathematics, the world of ideas, and all that thought about what is not sensible, have, for Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus, something divine; they constitute the activity of nous, or at least the nearest approach to its activity that we can conceive. It was this intellectual element in Plato's religion that led Christians — notably the author of Saint John's Gospel — to identify Christ with the Logos. Logos should be translated 'reason' in this connection; this prevents us from using 'reason' as the translation of nous. ...

 

Nous, we are told, is the image of the One; it is engendered because the One, in its self-quest, has vision; this seeing is nous ... nous may be considered as the light by which the One sees itself.

 

...

 

This brings us to Soul, the third and lowest member of the Trinity. Soul, though inferior to nous, is the author of all living things; it made the Sun and the Moon and the stars, and the whole visible world. It is the offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on nous, and another, which faces the external. The latter is associated with a downward movement, in which the soul generates its image, which is Nature and the world of sense.

 

...

 

This might suggest the Gnostic view that the visible world is evil, but Plotinus does not take this view. The visible world is beautiful, and the abode of blessed spirits; it is only less good than the intellectual world. In a very interesting controversial discussion of the Gnostic view, that the Cosmos and its Creator are evil, he admits that some parts of the Gnostic doctrine, such as the hatred of matter, may be due to Plato, but holds the other parts, which do not come from Plato, are untrue.

 

...

 

This doctrine, like Plato's, has difficulty in avoiding the view that the creation was a mistake.

 

...

 

The problem, in slightly different language, was inherited by Christian theologians; they, also, have found it difficult to account for the creation without allowing the blasphemous conclusion that, before it, something was lacking to the Creator.

So why did God create the universe? Maybe he was lonely?

 

 

PS What did you think of The Prophet?

[Pidesco]

I'm re-reading (and taking notes and finishing, this time) Bertram Russell's History of Western Philosophy, now, and already (he wrote this a decade before Graves wrote his seminal work) the background I gleaned from my previous reading is paying off handsomely (including Persian Fire and The Spartans).

 

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what Russell has written, so far, though it is interesting to read his opinions. (He did win the Nobel Prize for this work.)

 

I love that book, probably because my views are in some ways akin to those of Bertrand( ) Russel.

 

Right now I'm reading Michael Grant's The Classical Greeks, and Umberto Eco's A Passo Di Gambero.

[Baley]

Has anyone here read The Adventures of Augie March (by Saul Bellow)? I really enjoyed both Seize the Day and Herzog, and I keep hearing about its purported greatness. oh, and Easter has brought me the needed funds to book-shop again. (Yay!)

[metadigital]

I'm re-reading (and taking notes and finishing, this time) Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, now, and already (he wrote this a decade before Graves wrote his seminal work) the background I gleaned from my previous reading is paying off handsomely (including Persian Fire and The Spartans).

 

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what Russell has written, so far, though it is interesting to read his opinions. (He did win the Nobel Prize for this work.)

 

I love that book, probably because my views are in some ways akin to those of Bertrand( ) RusselL.

 

Right now I'm reading Michael Grant's The Classical Greeks, and Umberto Eco's A Passo Di Gambero.

Yeah, I just got to the middle ages ... so far I am a little concerned at Russell's fast-and-loose handling of the facts that I can confirm (after just reading the history of Ancient Greece, for example).

 

It's certainly an interesting point of view.

[Pidesco]

Stupid L...

[Cantousent]

All Men Are Brothers

[Dark_Raven]

Star Wars The New Essential Chronology

[Blarghagh]

A collection of H.P. Lovecraft Stories. Currently on "The Picture In The House"

[Stephen Amber]

John Keegan's A History of Warfare. I'm nearly done... Up next? Most likely Lord Dunsany's Jorkens stories.

[Pop]

Kurt Vonnegut died today.

[Xard]

John Keegan's A History of Warfare.

 

Awesome book

[metadigital]

Just finished History of Western Philosophy, and Meditations.

 

Bertrand's work is worth reading, especially to help put the Roman Catholic political institution into historical context.

 

Marcus Aurelius' notes "for himself" (the original title) were interesting as a time capsule on the life of a Roman Emperor in the second century, and a subscriber to the Stoic philosophy, but it became a little tedious (repetitive) towards the end.

[WITHTEETH]

Just finished History of Western Philosophy, and Meditations.

 

Bertrand's work is worth reading, especially to help put the Roman Catholic political institution into historical context.

 

Marcus Aurelius' notes "for himself" (the original title) were interesting as a time capsule on the life of a Roman Emperor in the second century, and a subscriber to the Stoic philosophy, but it became a little tedious (repetitive) towards the end.

I have both of those, the first one i took a class on, and that was the main text. As for Meditations, i heard a speech on Stoicism and became interested in it. Epetitus (don't remember how to spell is name right) a roman slave, great poet was a great Stoic too.

 

Its amazing what the Greeks thought of, like how everything is made of the atom(indivisible objects) and void. Properties of water were really out there. or how about Pythagorous and how he tries to relate EVERYTHING to his theorem and keeps other discoveries that create trouble to his thoughts hidden. Reminded me of Alan Turing another great mathematician, and his thoughts on AI, he thinks a priori, and i don't think he is right either.

[metadigital]

Epictetus, yes.

 

To be fair, the Greeks just had a fantastic "brainstorm", wherein they produced almost every idea conceivable, so it's only to be expected that some of them were correct and have been borne out with investigation. I mean, either the universe is a void, or its not. Either it cycles through existence and destruction (by fire, or otherwise), or not, etcetra.

 

I think the fact that democracy actually took off back in 500BC is a singly amazing concept, though. And the fact that the nascent democracy had to fend off the first superpower (the Persians) in the Battle of Marathon (which the Spartans were conveniently a day late for ... ).

[WITHTEETH]

To be fair, the Greeks just had a fantastic "brainstorm", wherein they produced almost every idea conceivable, so it's only to be expected that some of them were correct and have been borne out with investigation. I mean, either the universe is a void, or its not. Either it cycles through existence and destruction (by fire, or otherwise), or not, etcetra.

 

Brainstorm indeed. What do you think brought about this brainstorm, the catalyst, the cause, the spark? I've read many weird ideas from healthy brain food like fish since it was a great fishing area, to no state religion so they had the chance to think freely. And the gods were not omniscient, omnipotent, they made mistakes just like humans do.. just bigger! So they knew the gods didn't know everything too so that also led to a direction of thinking for oneself... wow.

Edited April 23, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[metadigital]

I think the fact that there wasn't a universal "state" religion, and people had to choose what to believe (the Hellenes had just thrown off their primitive matrilineal society of Moon-goddess worship, superceding it with patrilineal Zeus-worship), coupled with a curious aristocratic branch of society (all of the Greek philosophers were idle rich, otherwise they would be mending shoes, rather than talking about the cobblers' place in society ), led to people investigating more and coming up with some basic philosophical methods ... after all, theology and natural history (life sciences) and philosophy were all one and the same, and closely linked to astrology (which the Greeks borrowed directly from the Babylonians), which eventually led to astronomy. It wouldn't be centuries until the Mohammadans (the Eastern inheritors of the Greek sciences) turned their efforts to alchemy, leading to chemistry. The Greek city-states were finished, replaced by larger civilizations like the Macedonians.

The history of the Greek speaking world in antiquity may be divided into three periods: that of the free City States, which was brought to an end by Philip and Alexander; that of the Macedonian domination, of which the last remnant was extinguished by the Roman annexation of Egypt after the death of Cleopatra; and finally that of the Roman Empire. Of these three periods, the first is characterized by freedom and disorder, and the second by subjection and disorder, the third by subjection and order.

 

The second of these periods is known as the Hellenistic age. In science and mathematics, the work done during this period is the best ever achieved by the Greeks. In philosophy, it includes the foundation of the Epicurean and Stoic schools, and also of scepticism as a definitely formulated doctrine ...

Certainly existing religio-political conditions affected (and continue to effect) philosophical (and all) thought.

To frame a philosophy capable of coping with men intoxicated with the prospect of almost unlimited power and also with the apathy of the powerless is the most pressing task of our time.

 

Though many still sincerely believe in human equality and theoretical democracy, the imagination of modern people is deeply affected by the pattern of social organization suggested by the organization of industry in the nineteenth century, which is essentially undemocratic. On the one hand there are the captains of industry, and on the other the mass of workers. This disruption of democracy from within is not yet acknowledged by ordinary citizens in democratic countries, but it has been a preoccupation of most philosophers from Hegel onwards, and the sharp opposition which they discovered between the interests of the many and those of the few has found practical expression in Fascism. Of the philosophers, Nietzsche was unashamedly on the side of few, Marx whole-heartedly on the side of the many. Perhaps Bentham was the only one of importance who attempted a reconciliation of conflicting interests; he therefore incurred the hostility of both parties.

 

To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationships, it will be essential to recognize the necessary limitations of men's power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other.

Mr Russell sums up the state of investigations by reminding readers that although it may have kick-started the thirst for understanding:

Philosophy, throughout its history, has consisted of two parts inharmoniously blended: on the one hand a theory as to the nature of the world, on the other an ethical or political doctrine as to the best way of living. The failure to separate these two with sufficient clarity has been a source of much confused thinking. Philosophers, from Plato to William James, have allowed their opinions as to the constitution of the universe to be influenced by the desire for edification: knowing, as they supposed, what beliefs would make men virtuous, they have invented arguments, often very sophistical, to prove that these beliefs are true. For my part I reprobate this kind of bias, both on moral and on intellectual grounds. Morally, a philosopher who uses his professional competence for anything except a disinterested search for truth is guilty of a kind of treachery. And when he assumes in advance of inquiry, that certain beliefs, whether true or false, are such as to promote good behaviour, he is so limiting the scope of philosophical speculation as to make philosophy trivial; the true philosopher is prepared to examine all preconceptions.

...

Intellectually, the effect of mistaken moral considerations upon philosophy has been to impede progress to an extraordinary extent. I do not myself believe that philosophy can either prove or disprove the truth of religious dogmas, but ever since Plato most philosophers have considered it part of their business to produce 'proofs' of immortality and the existence of God. They have found fault with the proofs of their predecessors