Whatcha reading?

[Bond]

I'm reading this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/MeTalkPrettyOneDayCover.JPG

It's by David Sedaris, a frequent contributor to my favorite radio show, This American Life. Quite good so far.

[Swan]

Rereading through the first 11 volumes I have of Ultimate Spiderman in between my biweekly stops at the comic store

[Dyne]

I'm currently finishing off Mostly Harmless, the fifth HHG book. I'm also still reading The Prestige by Christopher Priest.

[DeathsHand]

Technically I was reading:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/DeathsHand/book.jpg

Before I discovered that I apparently no longer have the attention span required to read...
Part of me hopes to one day be able to read again...

[Nighthawk]

http://www.blizzard.com/shared/blizz-com/images/ebooks/lastguardian-large.jpg

finished the other two books, now I'm reading this...

[BreakABone]

I just finished the Bourne Supremacy yesterday. Trying to make it a point to only read while at work.

Just started the Bourne Ultimatum to finish up the trilogy.

Not sure if gonna read the other two or find a new series. Still need to buy the Gun Seller.

And don't we have a books thread?

[Professor S]

Just finished The Walking Dead vol. 8 and I'm still shaking

Currently reading Astonishing X-Men vol. 4 and wishing this wasn't Joss Whedon's final run on the book.

After that, I have Batman and Son in the wings and Y: The Last Man vol. 5.

[Angrist]

Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. 5th time and still great. Even though his later novels are better written.

[Acebot44]

:)

[Bond]

Sorry Acebot. I was trying to quote and reply to your post, but I accidently ended up editting your post and I deleted the whole thing. :(

Very embarrassing...

[BreakABone]

Sorry Acebot. I was trying to quote and reply to your post, but I accidently ended up editting your post and I deleted the whole thing. :(

Very embarrassing...

Isn't this like the 2-3 time you did this? :lolz:

What was he reading?

[manasecret]

I just finished The Elegant Universe. It's about string theory. Professor S, something you'd might be interested in.

http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/0/37/570/811/0375708111.jpg

That one is from around the mid- to late-nineties, so it's a bit out of date especially considering the fast pace of string theory, or M-theory as it is known now. So I am on to Greene's sequel of sorts, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Hopefully they've figured out some of the stuff they hadn't yet figured out by the time Elegant Universe was published.

http://a3.vox.com/6a00b8ea067566dece00cd97409f3b4cd5-500pi

[Dylflon]

Reading A Game of Thrones, first book in the series A Song of Fire and Ice. I'm surprised by how good it is.

[manasecret]

Technically I was reading:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/DeathsHand/book.jpg

Before I discovered that I apparently no longer have the attention span required to read...
Part of me hopes to one day be able to read again...

I go through ups and downs in my reading habits as well. At some times I have an unquenchable thirst for reading, at other times I just don't care one page into any book. I would guess you're just in a lull in your reading interest, and that it will come back.

[Vampyr]

Reading A Game of Thrones, first book in the series A Song of Fire and Ice. I'm surprised by how good it is.

Fantastic series. I'm on the third book.

[Angrist]

GRR Martin needs to kick his own butt and finish A Dance With Dragons.

[Vampyr]

GRR Martin needs to kick his own butt and finish A Dance With Dragons.

For realz.

[Fyacin]

Just requested the first of that series from the library, can't wait.

Also recently finished "Sun of Suns" by Karl Schroeder. Pretty good.

[KillerGremlin]

I just finished The Elegant Universe. It's about string theory. Professor S, something you'd might be interested in.

http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/0/37/570/811/0375708111.jpg

That one is from around the mid- to late-nineties, so it's a bit out of date especially considering the fast pace of string theory, or M-theory as it is known now. So I am on to Greene's sequel of sorts, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Hopefully they've figured out some of the stuff they hadn't yet figured out by the time Elegant Universe was published.

http://a3.vox.com/6a00b8ea067566dece00cd97409f3b4cd5-500pi

String Theory might suck the big one if they don't find the Higgs Boson with the CERN.

[Acebot44]

Lets try this again

This is the last book I finished reading

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/038533348X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

And it was my least favorite Vonnegut book thus far. Supposedly, besides Slaughterhouse-Five, Cat's Cradle is his most well known book but meh, I don't know why.

Now, I'm flipping through the short stories in

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0316143464.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

and

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0872861554.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Here is my favorite paragraph from the Bukowski book:

"And speaking of shit, constipation has always been a greater fear to me than cancer. (We'll get back to Mad Jimmy. Listen, I told you I write this way.) If I miss one day without shitting, I can't go anywhere, do anything -- I get so desperate when that happens that oftentimes I try to suck my own cock to unclog my system, to get things going again. And if you've ever tried to suck your own cock then you only know the terrible strain on the backbone, neckbone, every muscle, everything. You stroke the thing up as long as it will get then you really double up like some creature on a torture rack, legs way over your head and locked around the bedrungs, your asshole twitching like dying sparrow in the frost, everything bent together around your great beer belly, all your muscle sheathes ripped to shit, and what hurts is that you don't miss by a foot or two -- you miss by and eighth of an inch -- the end of your tongue and the tip of your cock that close, but it might as well be an eternity or forty miles. God, or whoever the hell, knew just what He was doing when He put us together."


...anywho, Sedaris seems to be liked by everyone these days and I'm just starting to appreciate his book that I'm reading. We'll see how the rest goes.

[Bond]

Acebot, if you like Sedaris you should give This American Life a listen.

[The Germanator]

I've seen Sedaris live and listened to almost all of his books on audio tape, which I really think is the way to go because his delivery is so damn funny. I really want to read his new book, When You are Engulfed in Flames

[Bond]

Germy, did you see him on the TAL tour or a solo act of his?

[The Germanator]

Just a solo act. He read some stuff at the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, DE to a sold out crowd. It was pretty fun.

[BreakABone]

.
Just wanted to say was a fan of the new avatar. :D

[Bube]

Hmm.. I just finished The Call of Cthulhu last night.

Can't decide if I should start reading Atlas Shrugged or Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque or The Divine Comedy.

[Professor S]

Hmm.. I just finished The Call of Cthulhu last night.

Can't decide if I should start reading Atlas Shrugged or Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque or The Divine Comedy.

I wouldn't read Atlas Shrugged until you've read The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's earlier book. Atlas Shrugged is arguably the "more important" of the two, but I believe that The Fountainhead is the better piece of fiction as a novel. Atlas Shrugged is more of an objectivist parable (statement of philosophy) than anything else and I believe it even has a 30 page monologue in it but don;t quote me as I read it a long time ago.

If you've never read Rand before, be prepared for her flawless protagonists. She always tried to portray her protags as the ideal to be strived for, and not a reflection of the reality of human flaws.

[Bube]

I wouldn't read Atlas Shrugged until you've read The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's earlier book. Atlas Shrugged is arguably the "more important" of the two, but I believe that The Fountainhead is the better piece of fiction as a novel. Atlas Shrugged is more of an objectivist parable (statement of philosophy) than anything else and I believe it even has a 30 page monologue in it but don;t quote me as I read it a long time ago.

If you've never read Rand before, be prepared for her flawless protagonists. She always tried to portray her protags as the ideal to be strived for, and not a reflection of the reality of human flaws.
Yeah, I heard that her characters are flawless. I don't know how I'd react to that before I've read it though.

From what I've read of her thoughts on objectivism, it seems that the philosophy itself thrives on flawless people. So it's not really surprising.

But damn! I searched high and low to find Atlas Shrugged, now you're telling me to go to the ends of the earth for The Fountainhead! :)

[Teuthida]

I've seen Sedaris live and listened to almost all of his books on audio tape, which I really think is the way to go because his delivery is so damn funny. I really want to read his new book, When You are Engulfed in Flames

Started listening to the audiobook of When You are Engulfed in Flames recently. Enjoying so far. Never read or heard his other stuff before. Just saw him on The Daily Show promoting this book.

[Professor S]

Yeah, I heard that her characters are flawless. I don't know how I'd react to that before I've read it though.

From what I've read of her thoughts on objectivism, it seems that the philosophy itself thrives on flawless people. So it's not really surprising.

But damn! I searched high and low to find Atlas Shrugged, now you're telling me to go to the ends of the earth for The Fountainhead! :)


Go to Amazon. You'll find it pretty easily along with her philosphical works.

As for Objectivism, I think its been widely misinterpreted and even purposely so in history by socialist intelelctuals in our university system. Its not really about being perfect, but that we should always attempt to try and strive for perfection. It is in that effort that we grow.

To read the basics of her philosphy, it is more about recognizing reality, and therefore it flaws and triumphs, and controlling feeling because feelings distort and confuse a proper analysis of reality. Like the name, it is about objectively viewing the world; not concentrating on what should happen, but dealing with what will happen and operating in that realm. Part of this is the recognition that we will never be perfect, but we should always work towards it, because the myth of the perfect can inpire a better good.

Like any philosophy, it is written by a flawed person and can contradict itself at times, but when compared to works of her contemporaries, like Also Sprach Zarathustra and The Communist Manifesto, Rand is the most balanced intellectual ever to walk the earth.

I'm also not an Objectivist, as by Rand's own definition, if you don't believe in everything she wrote, you are not an Objectivist, and I don't. But I'd have to say that of all the modern philosophies, I agree with objectivism the most. And she was an atheist, and I am not.

I'd recommend reading the Wiki on Objectivism and then decide whether you'd want to read more about it. At the very least its an interesting read. Her writings on Rational Self-Interest is especially interesting.

[Bube]

Go to Amazon. You'll find it pretty easily along with her philosphical works.

As for Objectivism, I think its been widely misinterpreted and even purposely so in history by socialist intelelctuals in our university system. Its not really about being perfect, but that we should always attempt to try and strive for perfection. It is in that effort that we grow.

To read the basics of her philosphy, it is more about recognizing reality, and therefore it flaws and triumphs, and controlling feeling because feelings distort and confuse a proper analysis of reality. Like the name, it is about objectively viewing the world; not concentrating on what should happen, but dealing with what will happen and operating in that realm. Part of this is the recognition that we will never be perfect, but we should always work towards it, because the myth of the perfect can inpire a better good.

Like any philosophy, it is written by a flawed person and can contradict itself at times, but when compared to works of her contemporaries, like Also Sprach Zarathustra and The Communist Manifesto, Rand is the most balanced intellectual ever to walk the earth.

I'm also not an Objectivist, as by Rand's own definition, if you don't believe in everything she wrote, you are not an Objectivist, and I don't. But I'd have to say that of all the modern philosophies, I agree with objectivism the most. And she was an atheist, and I am not.

I'd recommend reading the Wiki on Objectivism and then decide whether you'd want to read more about it. At the very least its an interesting read. Her writings on Rational Self-Interest is especially interesting.
I've read almost all of the wiki some time before, I might print it out for some bedside reading.

However, I also don't agree with objectivism, mainly because of the every-man-for-himself principle. But almost all of her other views are too harsh as well. And it's based too much on morality. If everybody was a perfect objectivist, it just might work. But when people start thinking outside the lines, and try to find shortcuts through life, it all falls apart.

Anyway, I'm not too qualified to discuss this subject, so I won't make a fool of myself any further.

But I must say that, instead of the philosophy, I'm more interested in how it shapes societies - and not just for Rand and objectivism.

The main reason I wanted to read the classic "1984 and Brave New World" duo and still want to read some others is because I wanted to see how people were affected by events and principles completely different from ours.

And to be honest, I first got into objectivism with BioShock - it caught my interest because of the delicately-designed but horribly-failed community of Rapture. And having heard that it was based on Rand's works (or at least, that it was very close), I wanted some further info on the subject. And that lead me to Atlas Shrugged.

Why do you say that I should read The Fountainhead first?

[Professor S]

I've read almost all of the wiki some time before, I might print it out for some bedside reading.

However, I also don't agree with objectivism, mainly because of the every-man-for-himself principle. But almost all of her other views are too harsh as well. And it's based too much on morality. If everybody was a perfect objectivist, it just might work. But when people start thinking outside the lines, and try to find shortcuts through life, it all falls apart.

Remember that she believes that morality and reason go hand in hand. Morality is a set of rules that we all live by to a certain extent because they are mutually beneficial. Therefore, those that behave immorally are punished, and we follow this to a certain extent with our laws.

You make a good point about things falling apart when people paint outside the lines, but because of her belief in individualism, its the individual who falls apart and not the group, because the group is looking out for their individual best interests. The main part that attracts me is 1) The belief that self-interest is not morally wrong, and honestly its not as long as you use reason/morality and 2) the realization that altruism is a myth, because we are being altruistic we are really just doing it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, so in the end all actions are based in self-interest. That doesn't mean that we should eliminate what we consider to be altruism, but that we shoudl recognize the reward of the act and accept it for what it is. If you help someone because it makes you feel good, is it worse than if you convince yourself it was selfless. Is the person any less-off because your motivation was based on emotional reward? There is no such thing as a selfless act, and in the end, our need to believe in altruism is a reflection of our own ego and not reality.

Rational self-interest benefits the group, because the more each individual concentrates on their own success and happiness, the more everyone succeeds, because success creates wealth and wealth creates more and better jobs and employment empowers the individual and enables their pursuit of happiness. In the end, the individual is the key to the success of the group.

Besides, when push comes to shove, all you can really control is your own actions, and your life is the sum of those actions, and not the result of anyone else's in interference. People can choose to accept what the fate others build for them, or choose to rip down those scaffolds and buld your own rewarding life. It is a choice.

And when compared to the collectivism of Marx and Engels, which is Rand's antithesis, Rand's philosophies have proven to be far more beneficial to society as a whole. Collectivism strips the individual of their identity, they feel no intrinsic motivation to succeed, because they are expressly told they mean nothing without everyone else. The state crushes the very thing it was intended to serve. Collectivism doesn't support the individual, it consumes them, and when you look at the attempts to create Marxist governments they have done nothing but oppress and consume their people.

Rational Self-Interest may not be perfect and is vulnerable to abuse by immoral and unreasonable people, but it in a world of imperfect people, it has enabled us to continue to succeed as a society and not stagnate or regress as cultures based on different principles have.

Why do you say that I should read The Fountainhead first?

Long story short, its a lot less preachy. Example: Atlas Shrugged has a 30 page monologue.

[Professor S]

I also found the BioShock Objectivist Dystopia to be fascinating, but to be honest, I found very little of it to reflect Objectivism as those that created and ran the world ignored all forms of reason, and without reason, objectivism doesn't exist.

EDIT: Please do not take my comments as an accusation of communism on your part, but I believe in today's society you either lean towards a collectivist of objectivist philosophy.

[Fox 6]

I loaned The Watchmen form Swan. W00t.

[Vampyr]

I loaned The Watchmen form Swan. W00t.

The grammatical mistakes in that small, simple sentence are dumbfounding.

[Bube]

You make a good point about things falling apart when people paint outside the lines, but because of her belief in individualism, its the individual who falls apart and not the group, because the group is looking out for their individual best interests. The main part that attracts me is 1) The belief that self-interest is not morally wrong, and honestly its not as long as you use reason/morality and 2) the realization that altruism is a myth, because we are being altruistic we are really just doing it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, so in the end all actions are based in self-interest. That doesn't mean that we should eliminate what we consider to be altruism, but that we shoudl recognize the reward of the act and accept it for what it is. If you help someone because it makes you feel good, is it worse than if you convince yourself it was selfless. Is the person any less-off because your motivation was based on emotional reward? There is no such thing as a selfless act, and in the end, our need to believe in altruism is a reflection of our own ego and not reality.

The 2 points you made are actually what most people live by. It's just that nobody ever stops to think about it.

I was going to say that I leaned towards altruistic, but after I looked up it's exact meaning, I saw that the completely-selfless community would be a utopia, probably impossible to achieve. And besides acting in ways that make you feel good, we all have to do something to live in our community. We expect something in return. I agree with what you say, but I still believe that people need to be in a community to survive.

I also found the BioShock Objectivist Dystopia to be fascinating, but to be honest, I found very little of it to reflect Objectivism as those that created and ran the world ignored all forms of reason, and without reason, objectivism doesn't exist.

Yes, maybe it wasn't an exact objectivist society, but it still had some of basic principles. But what do you mean by "reason"? Andrew Ryan's purpose of building the city was to make a morality-free environment so people could do whatever pleases them.. I think that's a good enough reason?

Please do not take my comments as an accusation of communism on your part, but I believe in today's society you either lean towards a collectivist of objectivist philosophy.

Of course not. This is a really nice discussion we're having, and I'm sure we wouldn't be accusing each other of anything :)

However, I'd like to say that I've always been an in-between person. I always believe that there's a healthy medium when I face two polar-opposite choices. Communism doesn't work in my opinion. What one earns is theirs. But like I said earlier, objectivism doesn't seem too right to me as well, because people need to interact with the people around them to survive, progress and be happy.

[Fox 6]

The grammatical mistakes in that small, simple sentence are dumbfounding.

I get up at 3:30 am for work. Sue me.

[Bond]

Onto my next summer reading book which is sure to make Professor cry:

http://saintluke.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/revolution.jpg

;)

[Professor S]

I recommend avoiding any literature with the term manifesto associated with it. :D

[Professor S]

Yes, maybe it wasn't an exact objectivist society, but it still had some of basic principles. But what do you mean by "reason"? Andrew Ryan's purpose of building the city was to make a morality-free environment so people could do whatever pleases them.. I think that's a good enough reason?

That is the exact opposite of Rand's beliefs. In Rand's work, the terms reason and morality are interchangable. We have morality because we reason that to act within a set of behaviors benefits us, because if everyone simply did as they pleased with no moral code, the world would be in chaos and in the end the individual would suffer.

There a considerable section from the Wiki that covers this:

There is a difference, therefore, between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and what Ayn Rand called "selfishness without a self" - a range-of-the-moment pseudo-"selfish" whim-worship or "hedonism." A whim-worshipper or "hedonist," according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value," "he values," "they value," or "God values," and still it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshipping "selfishness-without-a-self." She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.

This is why I believe Rand is so misunderstood. Her beliefs in morality fall more in line with those of self-professed progressive and Trotsky-ite, Christopher Hitchens; morality is a product of reason, and not God or Religion.

Me? I think she splits hairs in this, because I find reason in religious doctrine so my beliefs on morality can fall in line with hers and his, regardless of their atheism.

[Bube]

I think Ryan's plan was to make it close to objectivity, and I don't think he meant for people to butcher each other and stuff.

It was the citizens who took the "freedom" the wrong way. Which is what I was trying to say before - it fell apart, because people aren't perfect. Give people a bit of a good thing, and they want more. And some will go to any lengths to get it. Which affects everybody around.

[Professor S]

I think Ryan's plan was to make it close to objectivity, and I don't think he meant for people to butcher each other and stuff.

It was the citizens who took the "freedom" the wrong way. Which is what I was trying to say before - it fell apart, because people aren't perfect. Give people a bit of a good thing, and they want more. And some will go to any lengths to get it. Which affects everybody around.

I agree with your synopsis of the failure of the society in Bioshock, I just don't agree that is was an Objectivist society because of the utter absence on reason and morality. Rand wrote, self-interest without morality is hedonism, or self-interest without a self. You've mentioned perfection several times in this discussion and how it can be the downfall of Objectivism. Can you go further into this, because I'm not sure what you are referring to?

[Bube]

Well, "perfection" may not be the correct word - blame it on my rusty English :)

But here's what I mean - even though Rand suggests that morality be within reason and all that, and that reason, truth and self-interest should be the main focus of a man's life, there are going to be people who don't follow these rules, and take it the wrong way.

This endangers the ones who do, because this kind of a society seems to be in a very delicate balance - it relies on reason to keep everything in order.