|
On January 18 2013 13:12 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:56 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 12:18 mcc wrote:On January 18 2013 11:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
The way mcc is talking is exactly the sort of talk I was reacting to in my rant about hating scientists in the last reading thread. Taking science or empirical study on as an entire governing philosophy without being able to defend it as such, and consequently deriding objections related to philosophy as nitpicking or semantics or whatever other irrelevant thing, or deriding all of philosophy while making that poorly-developed philosophical argument. I am defending it, but I am not going to play wordgames about meaning of word "is" or "there" or other nonsense. People who think those are actually valid objections are either young (it is strange how prevalent this is actually in young people) or spent too much time convincing themselves that they actually matter. I am not deriding all objections, I am deriding objections based on nitpicking language and words. I know of many philosophical objections that have merit or are at least worthwhile topic of discussion. Calling it poorly-developed is not a valid objection, you know ? What exactly constitutes nitpicking? + Show Spoiler +Anyone who is interested in philosophy of language (and, unbeknownst to mcc, anyone who is interested in any sort of philosophy is interested in philosophy of language, but that is neither here nor there) really ought to give the above a shot. While I am limited to a recommendation based on having read an English translation (the edition pictured above is definitely recommended, as it contains both English and German), I still have no doubt that Philosophical Investigations presents, albeit in a strange manner, one of the best arguments for an acknowledgement that the words we use play an irreducibly influential role in the propriety of the utterance in which they implemented. Keep in mind that the work requires a degree of levity, "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him". In terms of communicative use value, what good is the agreement between two speakers that "there is no God" when the actuality of the concept of God is known to neither party? Is it useful to agree on nonsense? Maybe, but the real problem arises when two parties disagree. A faithful woman may claim a fair bit of nonsense when prompted for a spoken justification of her belief in God, but what if her beliefs are founded in very difficult to explain or rationalize experiences? Now don't me wrong, I am not defending the notion that we ought to rely on feelings and momentary epiphanies for constructing our worldview, but a fair number of intelligent, tolerant Christians implement a very loose set of belief structures that are far more difficult to indict than the stark lines of church doctrine, for they acknowledge the importance of rationality and empiricism alongside a difficult to describe feeling that saying a prayer before a roll of the dice will improve the outcome. Doubt and angst are important components of faith, as any Augustinian will tell you, and the process of mediating elusive, temporary experience with rational knowledge can take many Christians their entire lives to figure out. So when you say "there is no God" to a believer and he responds in opposition with clearly flimsy logic, consider the possibility that he is thinking to himself "I know he's right, but I just.....can't quite say why I disagree". [20:10] <dAPhREAk> someone should tell farvacola to shut the hell up [snip] [20:10] <MDJ> farva isnt here [20:10] <dAPhREAk> http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=393475¤tpage=10#197[20:10] <dAPhREAk> he's ruining my book thread Enough with the religion, friend 
ok, so talk about how we're reading books, but don't talk about the books. got it 
|
I need a fantasy book to read. Just finished watching the hobbit and I'm craving one. I'm thinking of reading The Mist born trilogy by Brandon Sanderson, what do you guys think?
I have read all the Game of Throne books, all of the Drizzt novels, most of the Dragonlance novels (mainly the ones by Tracy Hickman and the other author I forget >.<
|
On January 18 2013 13:12 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:56 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 12:18 mcc wrote:On January 18 2013 11:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
The way mcc is talking is exactly the sort of talk I was reacting to in my rant about hating scientists in the last reading thread. Taking science or empirical study on as an entire governing philosophy without being able to defend it as such, and consequently deriding objections related to philosophy as nitpicking or semantics or whatever other irrelevant thing, or deriding all of philosophy while making that poorly-developed philosophical argument. I am defending it, but I am not going to play wordgames about meaning of word "is" or "there" or other nonsense. People who think those are actually valid objections are either young (it is strange how prevalent this is actually in young people) or spent too much time convincing themselves that they actually matter. I am not deriding all objections, I am deriding objections based on nitpicking language and words. I know of many philosophical objections that have merit or are at least worthwhile topic of discussion. Calling it poorly-developed is not a valid objection, you know ? What exactly constitutes nitpicking? + Show Spoiler +Anyone who is interested in philosophy of language (and, unbeknownst to mcc, anyone who is interested in any sort of philosophy is interested in philosophy of language, but that is neither here nor there) really ought to give the above a shot. While I am limited to a recommendation based on having read an English translation (the edition pictured above is definitely recommended, as it contains both English and German), I still have no doubt that Philosophical Investigations presents, albeit in a strange manner, one of the best arguments for an acknowledgement that the words we use play an irreducibly influential role in the propriety of the utterance in which they implemented. Keep in mind that the work requires a degree of levity, "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him". In terms of communicative use value, what good is the agreement between two speakers that "there is no God" when the actuality of the concept of God is known to neither party? Is it useful to agree on nonsense? Maybe, but the real problem arises when two parties disagree. A faithful woman may claim a fair bit of nonsense when prompted for a spoken justification of her belief in God, but what if her beliefs are founded in very difficult to explain or rationalize experiences? Now don't me wrong, I am not defending the notion that we ought to rely on feelings and momentary epiphanies for constructing our worldview, but a fair number of intelligent, tolerant Christians implement a very loose set of belief structures that are far more difficult to indict than the stark lines of church doctrine, for they acknowledge the importance of rationality and empiricism alongside a difficult to describe feeling that saying a prayer before a roll of the dice will improve the outcome. Doubt and angst are important components of faith, as any Augustinian will tell you, and the process of mediating elusive, temporary experience with rational knowledge can take many Christians their entire lives to figure out. So when you say "there is no God" to a believer and he responds in opposition with clearly flimsy logic, consider the possibility that he is thinking to himself "I know he's right, but I just.....can't quite say why I disagree". [20:10] <dAPhREAk> someone should tell farvacola to shut the hell up [snip] [20:10] <MDJ> farva isnt here [20:10] <dAPhREAk> http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=393475¤tpage=10#197[20:10] <dAPhREAk> he's ruining my book thread Enough with the religion, friend
If anything it's Sam's fault for his obvious trolling with broad controversial statements like "Atheism is a bad philosophy" with nothing to back them up but "I'm qualified".
|
Trolling? trying to start a conversation? what's the difference?
edit: @below, oh ok we're talking shit about farv then i approve
|
On January 18 2013 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 13:12 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On January 18 2013 12:56 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 12:18 mcc wrote:On January 18 2013 11:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
The way mcc is talking is exactly the sort of talk I was reacting to in my rant about hating scientists in the last reading thread. Taking science or empirical study on as an entire governing philosophy without being able to defend it as such, and consequently deriding objections related to philosophy as nitpicking or semantics or whatever other irrelevant thing, or deriding all of philosophy while making that poorly-developed philosophical argument. I am defending it, but I am not going to play wordgames about meaning of word "is" or "there" or other nonsense. People who think those are actually valid objections are either young (it is strange how prevalent this is actually in young people) or spent too much time convincing themselves that they actually matter. I am not deriding all objections, I am deriding objections based on nitpicking language and words. I know of many philosophical objections that have merit or are at least worthwhile topic of discussion. Calling it poorly-developed is not a valid objection, you know ? What exactly constitutes nitpicking? + Show Spoiler +Anyone who is interested in philosophy of language (and, unbeknownst to mcc, anyone who is interested in any sort of philosophy is interested in philosophy of language, but that is neither here nor there) really ought to give the above a shot. While I am limited to a recommendation based on having read an English translation (the edition pictured above is definitely recommended, as it contains both English and German), I still have no doubt that Philosophical Investigations presents, albeit in a strange manner, one of the best arguments for an acknowledgement that the words we use play an irreducibly influential role in the propriety of the utterance in which they implemented. Keep in mind that the work requires a degree of levity, "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him". In terms of communicative use value, what good is the agreement between two speakers that "there is no God" when the actuality of the concept of God is known to neither party? Is it useful to agree on nonsense? Maybe, but the real problem arises when two parties disagree. A faithful woman may claim a fair bit of nonsense when prompted for a spoken justification of her belief in God, but what if her beliefs are founded in very difficult to explain or rationalize experiences? Now don't me wrong, I am not defending the notion that we ought to rely on feelings and momentary epiphanies for constructing our worldview, but a fair number of intelligent, tolerant Christians implement a very loose set of belief structures that are far more difficult to indict than the stark lines of church doctrine, for they acknowledge the importance of rationality and empiricism alongside a difficult to describe feeling that saying a prayer before a roll of the dice will improve the outcome. Doubt and angst are important components of faith, as any Augustinian will tell you, and the process of mediating elusive, temporary experience with rational knowledge can take many Christians their entire lives to figure out. So when you say "there is no God" to a believer and he responds in opposition with clearly flimsy logic, consider the possibility that he is thinking to himself "I know he's right, but I just.....can't quite say why I disagree". [20:10] <dAPhREAk> someone should tell farvacola to shut the hell up [snip] [20:10] <MDJ> farva isnt here [20:10] <dAPhREAk> http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=393475¤tpage=10#197[20:10] <dAPhREAk> he's ruining my book thread Enough with the religion, friend ok, so talk about how we're reading books, but don't talk about the books. got it
Should apply context, kind of an inside joke, we're all in TL ABL. Just messing with him per daphreak's evil
Now I am the one derailing. The irony
|
On January 18 2013 12:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm jealous you can read Lem in Polish.
what sf have you read that you think it's boring?
Yes, i consider it one of the bigger perks of knowing Polish 
As for other sci-fi I mostly read things someone said I should, but only samples here and there as mostly I got discouraged. Aasimov, Clarke, Heinlein I found not really interesting. Was nicely surprised by P.K. Dick, I liked some of his works. I liked Ursula Le Guin. I am planning to read more from Strugacki brothers as I liked Picnic quite a lot so I am looking forward to their other books. Recently friend convinced me to read Peter F. Hamilton, again very disappointed as it was just stories that could be written in our time, just thrown into sci-fi scenery. Other than that I read some other stuff from various authors, mostly in some anthologies, but cannot recall right now from the top of my head as it was a lot of years ago, could try to remember if you are interested.
Basically I have some general objections to most of the sci-fi I read. Some authors know nothing or too little about science. Others have somewhat good ideas, but are actually bad writers. Common occurrence is to write bad stories that could easily be placed in our time or even in the past, but they would not succeed due to low quality, so they use sci-fi props to move the story to sci-fi, where the chance of success is bigger due to lower standards. And most important, stories have no depth, no interesting ideas, just action or simple story-telling tricks. For some reason in movies or some other genres I do not mind mindless fun, but I cannot stand it in sci-fi books.
|
Yeah I'd be interested to hear what you've read, if you can remember. SF is my True Love so I hate for people to think she's plain but yeah there's a lot of crap.
As a random suggestion based on what you said you liked, can I recommend Robert Silverberg "Shadrach in the Furnace"
edit: asimov clarke heinlein are what we call "golden age" SF, they're historically interesting but it's from a time before SF writers learned how to write
edit: Hamilton is just pulp AFAIK
|
On January 18 2013 12:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 12:18 mcc wrote:On January 18 2013 11:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
The way mcc is talking is exactly the sort of talk I was reacting to in my rant about hating scientists in the last reading thread. Taking science or empirical study on as an entire governing philosophy without being able to defend it as such, and consequently deriding objections related to philosophy as nitpicking or semantics or whatever other irrelevant thing, or deriding all of philosophy while making that poorly-developed philosophical argument. I am defending it, but I am not going to play wordgames about meaning of word "is" or "there" or other nonsense. People who think those are actually valid objections are either young (it is strange how prevalent this is actually in young people) or spent too much time convincing themselves that they actually matter. I am not deriding all objections, I am deriding objections based on nitpicking language and words. I know of many philosophical objections that have merit or are at least worthwhile topic of discussion. Calling it poorly-developed is not a valid objection, you know ? What exactly constitutes nitpicking? + Show Spoiler +Anyone who is interested in philosophy of language (and, unbeknownst to mcc, anyone who is interested in any sort of philosophy is interested in philosophy of language, but that is neither here nor there) really ought to give the above a shot. While I am limited to a recommendation based on having read an English translation (the edition pictured above is definitely recommended, as it contains both English and German), I still have no doubt that Philosophical Investigations presents, albeit in a strange manner, one of the best arguments for an acknowledgement that the words we use play an irreducibly influential role in the propriety of the utterance in which they implemented. Keep in mind that the work requires a degree of levity, "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him". In terms of communicative use value, what good is the agreement between two speakers that "there is no God" when the actuality of the concept of God is known to neither party? Is it useful to agree on nonsense? Maybe, but the real problem arises when two parties disagree. A faithful woman may claim a fair bit of nonsense when prompted for a spoken justification of her belief in God, but what if her beliefs are founded in very difficult to explain or rationalize experiences? Now don't me wrong, I am not defending the notion that we ought to rely on feelings and momentary epiphanies for constructing our worldview, but a fair number of intelligent, tolerant Christians implement a very loose set of belief structures that are far more difficult to indict than the stark lines of church doctrine, for they acknowledge the importance of rationality and empiricism alongside a difficult to describe feeling that saying a prayer before a roll of the dice will improve the outcome. Doubt and angst are important components of faith, as any Augustinian will tell you, and the process of mediating elusive, temporary experience with rational knowledge can take many Christians their entire lives to figure out. So when you say "there is no God" to a believer and he responds in opposition with clearly flimsy logic, consider the possibility that he is thinking to himself "I know he's right, but I just.....can't quite say why I disagree".
I am saying that quibbling over language issues has its place in philosophy, but practice shows us that those issues are not preventing us in engaging in discussions about other subjects and in those discussions introducing those language issues is actually counterproductive. There is no need to define god globally, when you are discussing one specific aspect of it or you are discussing concept of god that is clear to everyone who actually want to understand your point and not just nitpick.
|
On January 18 2013 13:24 SafeWord wrote:
I need a fantasy book to read. Just finished watching the hobbit and I'm craving one. I'm thinking of reading The Mist born trilogy by Brandon Sanderson, what do you guys think?
I have read all the Game of Throne books, all of the Drizzt novels, most of the Dragonlance novels (mainly the ones by Tracy Hickman and the other author I forget >.<
Kingkiller Chronicles. Go.
|
On January 18 2013 13:26 sam!zdat wrote:
Trolling? trying to start a conversation? what's the difference?
The difference is you are challenging peoples beliefs without giving them any form reasoning and when they try to reason with you all you seem to do is nitpick about semantics. I know you know exactly what people mean when they say "I don't believe in God", you may not know what their interpretation of God is, but you don't need to to know what they are saying.
Atheism is too broad (in my opinion) for you to just straight up say it is a bad philosophy.
From Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
So essentially you are accusing people who do not believe in supernatural beings of following a bad philosophy with nothing to back yourself up but "I'm qualified", if you wanted a genuine conversation you would have at least said why you think it's bad.
|
I think people will become annoyed if I continue to talk about this
edit: but I can't help but note that I find it highly amusing how atheists are just as touchy about their faith as everyone else 
|
Currently reading:
![[image loading]](http://www.mylib.in/Images/0143034669.jpg)
Taking a break from the usual sci-fi fiction to read this really intriguing piece of Pulitzer-prize winning journalism. It's a lengthy and deep look into the happenings around the Middle East from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan onwards. The book really does a great job of detailing the overall scene of the mujahideen movement against the Soviets, and how it led to the creation of Sunni non-state funded terrorism and the general espionage and diplomatic situation of the Middle East and Central Asia prior to September 11, 2001.
For example, Coll explores how the spread of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's ultra-conservative branch of Islam, came to spread its ideology throughout the Middle East due largely to a massive influx of oil money from the 1979 OPEC oil price gouging - leading to Wahhabi-funded religious schools which trained a huge number of mujahideen in and around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. These fighters would then, after the victory against the USSR, disperse all around the Islamic world spreading a deadly mixture of hardcore guerilla warfare training and radical Saudi Sunni beliefs.
Also covered in extensive detail are the relationship between the various American intelligence and diplomatic agencies with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, the history of Afghanistan, the Afghan civil war following the Soviet expulsion, and the rise of bin Laden as a prominent terrorist figure. This book is very eye opening and what I find really worthwhile here is learning about how diplomacy and inter-institutional relationships work in the real world, which is in stark contrast with the simplicity you generally see on TV shows and movies.
Very worthwhile if you're interested in the subject, or want to broaden your knowledge of politics in general.
|
Did not exactly give up on this, just stopped reading it because all the characters, and especially the main character, were extremely uninteresting and one dimensional.
George R. Stewart - Earth Abides
Supposed to be a great SF classic, and I'm really into the whole Post Apocalyptica stuff, but this book was simply too trite and I was able to guess what would happen before it was unveiled - very boring (mind you, I stopped reading halfway through, maybe all the good stuff was at the end. I shall enver know.)
Most recently read this awesome book.
Michel Houellebecq - Atomised
Gave me a sudden depression half way through (the author has been described as writing 'deprresive realism' which I think fits the bill perfectly) but that didn't stop me from finishing it (although I had to read it sort of in a disconnected mood thereonafter). Read, by the same author, 'the map and the territory' previously, which I think is even better, and not so depressing IMO. Curiously, after finishing this book, you come to realize that it is actually hardcore SF (in a way) and not only social satire - but ellaborating on this point would be spoiling (hope I have wetted someones appetite).
Currently reading this book:
Milan Kundera - The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Not much to say, only 20 pages in currently. Supposed to be Kundera's masterpiece, and you just have to love his quirky and poetic title (I wonder what the title reads like in the original Czech, in my native language, Danish, the title is even more poetic IMO - but then again Danish is the language of poets!). Previously read Kundera's 'The Joke' which I very much enjoyed and wholeheartedly recommend.
Going to read this book:
Vladimir Nabokov - Pale Fire
Because Nabokov is a fucking literary genius.
Reading this thread I have three major impressions. First, that people have trouble finishing Mr.D's 'The Idiot' which I also have never finished - thought it became kinda drawn out in the middle tbh, but will get back to it later. Secondly, that people have a huge crush on Murakami! I read 'Norweigan Wood' with interest, 'Wind Up Bird Chronicle' with amazement and 'Sputnik Beloved' with curiosity but threw away 'Kafka on the Shore' in sheer anger and dissapointment at his writing style which drones on and on in that book imo. I don't want to argue peoples tastes or anything, but at that point I guess I simply had enough of Murakami - don't know if I'll ever pick up IQ84 for that reason. Thirdly, why hasn't anyone mentioned the works of Umberto Eco? People reading 'The Pillars of the Earth' and such stuff should definately be into Eco's erudite ramblings of medieval mystery! Great thread anyways, good place for inspiration.
|
Kafka on the Shore is great
What's the one with the sheep man? That's probably my favorite, just because of the sheep man
I read The Name of the Rose and Baudolino, both pretty sweet
|
|
|
Canada11340 Posts
On January 18 2013 13:24 SafeWord wrote:
I need a fantasy book to read. Just finished watching the hobbit and I'm craving one. I'm thinking of reading The Mist born trilogy by Brandon Sanderson, what do you guys think?
I have read all the Game of Throne books, all of the Drizzt novels, most of the Dragonlance novels (mainly the ones by Tracy Hickman and the other author I forget >.<
I have only read the first one, but I would definitely recommend it. When I have time, I'll read the rest. I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy it after the prologue/ first chapter one, but I was hooked after that and powered through.
|
Ok I guess I should say what I'm reading if I'm gonna gadfly everyone else
My brainal capacity has been warped by the "information age", so I have to read a lot of things at once so I can flip channels. A couple of these books I'm reading with students, so they're part of my job.
Nassim Taleb - The Black Swan
Just started it. Many people seem to think he's a bit of an asshole, but I think he's my kinda asshole.
David Harvey - Social Justice and the City
I'm a little obsessed with David Harvey. He writes about political economy and geography. This is a collection of his earliest essays - not recommended as an introduction. It's extremely interesting to see the formation of his thinking, however.
Herbert Marcuse - Eros and Civilization
This is with my bookgroup that I do on skype with my dad and a friend from school. This is some kinda oldschool Marxo-Freudian theory - seems a bit simplistic by today's standards (and his psychoanalysis is out of date), but interesting for historical reasons as an early attempt to integrate psychoanalysis with social theory.
Salman Rushdie - Haroun and the Sea of Stories
Reading this with a student (8th grade - very clever on the math-science axis, has trouble with abstract thought. My job is to try to make him understand what a metaphor is. Harder than it sounds). Assigned by his school. This book is pretty awesome though - it's like baby's first metafiction. I'll remember this one.
Haruki Murakami - 1Q84
It's aight. I was told to read it one book at a time, with some separation in between. apparently it gets repetitive. I'll do that. It's nice to have some new murakami but it's not amazing.
Roger Zelazy - The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth
This is great. Zelazy is one of those logorrheacs who occasionally writes something pretty cool - I think the short story may be a better form for him. Really enjoying these.
Anne Groton - From Alpha to Omega: A beginning course in classical Greek
Still on the part about the alphabet
Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit
Wonderful. I read 5 pages at a time. But pleased to discover that it's much more readable than "Introduction to the Philosophy of History"
Stuart Kaffman - The Origins of Order
Way over my head. Going very slowly. Interesting what I manage to glean from it.
Ken Wilber - Up From Eden
Though often embarrassingly goofy, worth taking seriously. At worst, he's an interesting crank, and I'm interested in the history of thought of this kind (basically, reception of eastern philosophical traditions in american thought, but also structural thinking and stage-theories in general)
Marion Nestle - Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health
Reading with a student (advanced ESL). I spend painful amounts of time reading this book very slowly. Good thing it's actually moderately interesting and relevant to my studies. Think No Logo for the food industry.
Recently Finished:
Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy (An anthology demonstrating what he took to be the essential core of mystical philosophical traditions, mostly Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, Platonist with Huxley's commentary. Very interesting context for understanding his novels, and I enjoyed reading Huxley's take on things. I read this one pretty slowly)
Benoit Mandelbrot - The Fractalist, Memoir of a Scientific Maverick (Wonderful! Mandelbrot is a badass.)
Kim Stanley Robison - 2312 (Set far in the future of the Mars trilogy, and before The Memory of Whiteness, filling in a good sense of continuity between the two. Interesting to see KSR take things in the "unified future history" direction. Not as good as Mars, but that's a tough act to follow.)
|
So far in 2013 it looks like all I will be reading is academic papers / reviews / studies. 
|
On January 18 2013 13:24 SafeWord wrote:
I need a fantasy book to read. Just finished watching the hobbit and I'm craving one. I'm thinking of reading The Mist born trilogy by Brandon Sanderson, what do you guys think?
I have read all the Game of Throne books, all of the Drizzt novels, most of the Dragonlance novels (mainly the ones by Tracy Hickman and the other author I forget >.<
My birthday is coming up and im hoping to get The Mistborn Trilogy! Heard good things about it. Also, that new book by Sanderson, The Way of Kings. That one should be good as well. Gonna read it after Mistborn
|
On January 18 2013 17:54 JOJOsc2news wrote:So far in 2013 it looks like all I will be reading is academic papers / reviews / studies.
haha same so much research to do, so little time for fun reading :\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/books/PhilosophicalInvestigations.jpg)
