|
Baa?21247 Posts
On February 17 2013 21:14 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 21:06 lungic wrote:On February 17 2013 16:04 Cambium wrote:
I heard Endymion and Rise of Endymion aren't nearly as good the Hyperion books, so I think I'm going to pass. I read the summaries of the other books, and the stories didn't seem too interesting. I'm glad the first two books covered most of the stories with regards to the AIs, Hegemony and Ousters.
Normally I wouldn't recommend that, but in this case I think it can be excused, and even be a good idea. Perhaps try Ilium instead later on? It's not as "deep" as Hyperion, but it has a better pacing. Simmons got talent, and it's easily to write him off from the point you now leave. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll add that to my to-read list (it's a huge list though). Just read the wiki page on Ilium and Olympos, I think I'll read The Iliad & The Odyssey before 
Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion was just something special.
Endymion/Rise of Endymion were definitely a notch below the first two books, and did involve a significant reworking/retcon of parts of the first two books. I don't think they were bad books and I enjoyed them a lot, but they certainly appear much worse than they are because of the comparison to the first two books imo. If you really like Simmons you can go and read them, otherwise you can skip them if you wish.
|
I sucked at latin and hated translating Virgil, but translating Tacitus was awesome. Such a freaking great writer. I need to read the Annals of these days.
|
On February 18 2013 05:09 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 04:48 sam!zdat wrote:On February 18 2013 04:46 babylon wrote:
Well, if you don't read Aeneid (which, I agree, is boring as fuck) No no, the aeneid is a beautiful work of genius, just not in ENGLISH  I do hate Latin. I can't sustain an interest in any ancient work written in Classical Latin. (Exception are English translations, of course.)
oh it burns my soul
On February 18 2013 05:09 babylon wrote:
You're thinking way too late though. I'm talking pre-Achaemenid.
oh, I forgot the context of Herodotus' discussion. He's talking about a later egyptian influence?
|
Ahh yes Babylon, I apologize if it came off as though I were simply advocating the solidified Epic. What I meant to say is that the Epic of Gilgamesh hovers right around the point in history during which spoken word storytelling began to convert into written or symbolic form (at least from the limited perspective of our historic knowledge), and for that reason it is a very nice place to start for those interested in such things. I would consider the labeling of the Epic of Gilgamesh as the "first" piece of literature more a form of qualitative shorthand meant to assist the layman in understanding the work rather than a definitive statement.
|
Since we're discussing the merits of various translations versus the original language, could anyone recommend the best way to learn a language (and yeah I know that's a loaded question)? I find that I don't struggle very much with the structure of a new language, but have a really hard time building up a vocabulary. Would I be best served to simply read an X-English dictionary for a given language? Anyone have any good Latin/Italian/Russian/French books for learning those languages? It's a bit off-topic, but I ask because languages seem to be the tread of discussion at the moment.
|
The first work of literature is shakespeare, because before him, nobody had ever discovered the human soul (edit: that's a joke)
edit: @above, I can't really say for spoken languages, but for Latin at least, the best thing is just to start reading and look everything up in a dictionary. I keep a notebook where I write all the words I look up, in the hopes they might stick in my mind. The think with Latin, too, is that vocabulary will differ significantly from author to author, so you're not just learning Latin vocabulary, you're learning, say, the vocabulary of Horace. This is even more so in Greek, or so I'm told. Of course, after you know Latin vocabulary, French is pretty much just obvious, being the vulgar degenerate language that it is 
|
On February 18 2013 05:20 Shiori wrote:
Since we're discussing the merits of various translations versus the original language, could anyone recommend the best way to learn a language (and yeah I know that's a loaded question)? I find that I don't struggle very much with the structure of a new language, but have a really hard time building up a vocabulary. Would I be best served to simply read an X-English dictionary for a given language? Anyone have any good Latin/Italian/Russian/French books for learning those languages? It's a bit off-topic, but I ask because languages seem to be the tread of discussion at the moment.
I just started learning German using Rosetta Stone, and I really enjoy it. I did not really enjoy the classroom approach to language learning while in hs and college, and this program is a nice alternative. I've only just started though, so I can't quite say how well it teaches vocabulary.
|
Probably. I can't remember. I read Herodotus four years ago and dropped him like a hot potato as soon as I finished my required course on Greek lit.  Have you read Gore Vidal's "Creation" though?
@ farv: I highly disagree with "the Epic of Gilgamesh hovers right around the point in history during which spoken word storytelling began to convert into written or symbolic form," but would gladly continue this conversation in PM, if you're interested. I think it's just safer to say that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the first known Mesopotamian epic.
@ Shiori: Speaking or reading? I'm sure all our Latin scholars in here can recommend good language learning books for Latin. If you're interested in learning how to read French, I recommend "French for Reading" by Sandberg. I can't speak languages worth shit.
|
On February 18 2013 05:20 Shiori wrote:
Since we're discussing the merits of various translations versus the original language, could anyone recommend the best way to learn a language (and yeah I know that's a loaded question)? I find that I don't struggle very much with the structure of a new language, but have a really hard time building up a vocabulary. Would I be best served to simply read an X-English dictionary for a given language? Anyone have any good Latin/Italian/Russian/French books for learning those languages? It's a bit off-topic, but I ask because languages seem to be the tread of discussion at the moment.
If it's not a dead language, I'd start with getting used to it by listening to it, e.g. to music in the said language. Then try to immerse yourself as much as possible. Could be an internet forum, movies, music, or living abroad.
On February 18 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:The first work of literature is shakespeare, because before him, nobody had ever discovered the human soul (edit: that's a joke) edit: @above, I can't really say for spoken languages, but for Latin at least, the best thing is just to start reading and look everything up in a dictionary. I keep a notebook where I write all the words I look up, in the hopes they might stick in my mind. The think with Latin, too, is that vocabulary will differ significantly from author to author, so you're not just learning Latin vocabulary, you're learning, say, the vocabulary of Horace. This is even more so in Greek, or so I'm told. Of course, after you know Latin vocabulary, French is pretty much just obvious, being the vulgar degenerate language that it is
Then that makes English a bastard child by several fathers?
|
On February 18 2013 05:26 maybenexttime wrote:Then that makes English a bastard child by several fathers?
Don't you know mongrels are always more beautiful? Just think about mixed-race women.
On February 18 2013 05:26 babylon wrote:but would gladly continue this conversation in PM, if you're interested.
And deny us all the chance to benefit from your erudition?? for shame!
On February 18 2013 05:26 babylon wrote:
I can't speak languages worth shit.
Why would you want to? Mostly everybody worth talking to is already dead
|
On February 18 2013 04:48 sam!zdat wrote:It was great. I need to go reread Jameson's essay on it now. What Strugatski should I read next?
I must admit I have not read too much of their books. But the canonical choice seems to be The Doomed City, which is not as stupid as its name might suggest I have read it and liked it quite a lot.
One aspect about the Strugatski brothers you should be aware of: Most of their books were censored quite heavily. So it might make sense to get versions that were translated from the original versions after the end of the soviet union.
|
Imagine trying to reconstruct English or French phonology 2000 years from now. Clusterfuck. They'll think the French actually pronounced the word-final t's and r's and shit, and English is just such a smattering of everything it will be a pain to reconstruct.
I agree that mostly everyone worth talking to is already dead but some of the people who are talking about the already-dead people speak German and/or French, so I must learn German and/or French to communicate with them about the dead people.
|
On February 18 2013 05:36 babylon wrote:
some of the people who are talking about the already-dead people speak German and/or French, so I must learn German and/or French to communicate with them about the dead people.
yup
|
|
|
Oh, lol, farv is banned for 30 days. How unlucky. Can he reply to PMs I send him, or will he have to endure 30 days of silence?
Well... sam, it looks like you must hold down the fort.
|
On February 18 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:froggy, I'm afraid this passage puts Latour at least provisionally in my camp: Show nested quote +
Postmodernism is a symptom, not a fresh solution. It lives under the modern Constitution, but it no longer believes in the guarantees the Constitution offers. It senses that something has gone awry in the modern critique, but it is not able to do anything but prolong that critique, though without believing in its foundations (Lyotard, 1979). Instead of moving on to empirical studies of the networks that give meaning to the work of purification it denounces, postmodernism rejects all empirical work as illusory and deceptively scientistic (Baudrillard, 1992). Disappointed rationalists, its adepts indeed sense that modernism is done for, but they continue to accept its way of dividing up time; thus they can divide up eras only in terms of successive revolutions. They feel that they come 'after' the moderns, but with the disagreeable sentiment that there is no more 'after.' 'No future': this is the slogan added to the moderns' motto 'No past.' What remains? Disconnected instants and groundless denunciations, since the postmoderns no longer believe in the reasons that would allow them to denounce and to become indignant.
Come on, you can't just align with anyone who takes shots at postmodernism; that's the low-hanging fruit.
I simply can't get anything out of Latour because he never provides substantive opponents or interesting critiques thereof and his own counter-theses border on indecipherable leaving vastly more questions than answers.
What precisely does it mean for society and nature to be "co-produced"? What is a "quasi-object"? What status is given to natural objects in the opposing conception and in what sense is this traditional conception of natural objects "too strong" such that it needs replacement by quasi-objects? Who has held the conception so imputed and is it commonly enough attached to the term 'object' that we need a new term, or is Latour simply attempting to inflate his importance?
If you can find satisfactory answers to such questions, fill me in.
I should probably add my own book for the thread at this point.
![[image loading]](http://i43.tower.com/images/mm122354547/philosophy-without-intuitions-herman-cappelen-hardcover-cover-art.jpg)
The primary thesis of this book is that philosophers do not in any distinctive sense rely on intuitions as evidence, going against the self-conception of many contemporary philosophers and potentially undermining the entire paradigm of the nascent experimental philosophy movement.
Overall, I was somewhat disappointed with it, though that probably stems as much from my high expectations as from the book's failings. I find myself very much in agreement with the Cappelen's thesis, and his demolition of the argument from 'intuition'-talk is convincing. But much more time than is needed is devoted to this issue, and his demolition of the more interesting argument from philosophical practice ends up being too unstructured and diffuse to carry as much force.
It ends up not being nearly as inspiring and stimulating as the somewhat similar:
![[image loading]](http://i43.tower.com/images/mm109174535/philosophy-timothy-williamson-paperback-cover-art.jpg)
Sadly, early indications are that neither have been having much of an impact on the practice of experimental philosophers, because they're incompetent. :p
edit: Stylistically, both of these works are absurdly dry even by academic standards, though generally admirably clear. Then again, maybe I just have a problem with Swedes.
|
I am reading the Nagash trilogy (Fantasy warhammer and too lazy to link a pic) But if you care for warhammer lore at all, it is Really good, even if you arent into warhammer much I'd still reccomend it.
|
On February 18 2013 12:43 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:froggy, I'm afraid this passage puts Latour at least provisionally in my camp:
Postmodernism is a symptom, not a fresh solution. It lives under the modern Constitution, but it no longer believes in the guarantees the Constitution offers. It senses that something has gone awry in the modern critique, but it is not able to do anything but prolong that critique, though without believing in its foundations (Lyotard, 1979). Instead of moving on to empirical studies of the networks that give meaning to the work of purification it denounces, postmodernism rejects all empirical work as illusory and deceptively scientistic (Baudrillard, 1992). Disappointed rationalists, its adepts indeed sense that modernism is done for, but they continue to accept its way of dividing up time; thus they can divide up eras only in terms of successive revolutions. They feel that they come 'after' the moderns, but with the disagreeable sentiment that there is no more 'after.' 'No future': this is the slogan added to the moderns' motto 'No past.' What remains? Disconnected instants and groundless denunciations, since the postmoderns no longer believe in the reasons that would allow them to denounce and to become indignant.
Come on, you can't just align with anyone who takes shots at postmodernism; that's the low-hanging fruit.
I'm trolling you just a bit my dear froggert. But to some extent, I'll take whatever I can get. He's got some social currency with exactly the sorts of people I have to deal with, so there's a couple of tactically juicy quotations here that I intend to milk for whatever they're worth. His theory is totally inadequate, his presentation is repetitive and overblown in typical gallic fashion, but it's not wholly without merit.
I simply can't get anything out of Latour because he never provides substantive opponents or interesting critiques thereof and his own counter-theses border on indecipherable leaving vastly more questions than answers.
What precisely does it mean for society and nature to be "co-produced"? What is a "quasi-object"? What status is given to natural objects in the opposing conception and in what sense is this traditional conception of natural objects "too strong" such that it needs replacement by quasi-objects? Who has held the conception so imputed and is it commonly enough attached to the term 'object' that we need a new term,
i think the quasi object is just kinda... some object (or process, it seems) conceived of as a representationally primitive unity of the various aspects from which you could view it - i.e. as a natural phenomenon, or as a social phenomenon - rather than as something which is simultaneously a natural phenomenon and a social phenomenon somehow supervening on top of one another.
As far as I can tell, Latour's point has nothing to do with the ontological status of physical objects in the sense in which (I think) you would be concerned with it. I don't know how he extends his critique to actual scientific practice - he hasn't talked about that. Right now it's purely in the realm of what I would think of as cultural theory or the critique of ideology. More about how people think about science or conceive of science as a historical phenomenon, rather than about how they do science.
At the beginning of the book, he simply lists things that he reads about in a newspaper one morning. I think those would be the "quasi-objects." Simply the way the postmodern subject experiences scientific objects within the symbolic order. (my words, not latour's). i don't really know though, I'm only halfway through. If I make any breakthrough nest Sunday, you'll be the first to know.
edit: probably the best example: what is global warming? is it a thing we are creating, as human actors, or is it a natural force which occurs to us? what about capitalism? the moderns seems to have it both ways, sort of one after another and never the twain shall meet. why is it that moderns think about the world in this way?
edit: it probably doesn't matter. I'm not unpleased with it because people have read the book, and it says some things I can use. It's not really saying much I hadn't already thought about better in other terms, though, I think.
or is Latour simply attempting to inflate his importance?
i wouldn't doubt it for a minute
|
|
|
On February 17 2013 17:58 sam!zdat wrote:
disillusioned! it is a major progress in his thinking! the early foundation novels are so horribly naive!
edit: the eighties are not the fifties man
I disagree (and as a former sociology student I find psycho-history quite attractive for obvious reasons). + Show Spoiler +A planet-wide, let alone a galactic, consciousness, is to me insufferably dull. The main reason given for Gaia/Galaxia, in book 5 iirc, of some amorphous extra-galactic threat is shoddy beyond belief. I can't remember the title of the short story I mentioned (it may be called "The Green") where Asimov posits a planet wide consciousness and opts for the chaos of individuality. But, it was in the 1950s and therefore of a piece with the 3 original Foundation novels written around that time.
I am getting The Trial out of the library tomorrow. I am looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.majipoor.com/pimage/p0000800.jpg)
