EnglishEdward
Deity
Finished last night:
Occupy Me
by
Tricia Sullivan.
which I enjoyed greatly.
Occupy Me
by
Tricia Sullivan.
which I enjoyed greatly.
Which Book Are You Reading Now? Volume XII
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
- Status
every time I read something Tyson writes or says about the history of religion I want to claw my own eyes out
does he do that in this text
if not, it may be a winner
Well, that's the thing, Moist von Lipwig is the focus of most of the book because, being the conman that he is, he tends to draw attention, but it's no longer his ideas or his project; he's just keeping things together (with Vetinari's hands-on assistance), but it doesn't quite feel like a Mr. Slightly Damp book.
If I got it right, which I think I did, you're saying that the previous books always showed something new and RS doesn't show anything new except a new relationship between preexisting parts.tjs282 said:
EnglishEdward
Deity
Finished last night:
New Spring
by the late
Robert Jordan
about which I have mixed views.
New Spring
by the late
Robert Jordan
about which I have mixed views.
Reading "Snow" by Orhan Pamuk which is interesting but hard work, so it is getting read in bursts.
Started but put aside ftm "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" by Catherine Nixey which felt like a lighter, less authorative version of "The Closing of the Western Mind:The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman. Didn't feel I was learning anything from Nixey but may return to it.
Got a 2nd hand copy of the "Gormenghast" trilogy by Mervyn Peake so I plan on rereading that for the first time in over 20 years.
Started but put aside ftm "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" by Catherine Nixey which felt like a lighter, less authorative version of "The Closing of the Western Mind:The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman. Didn't feel I was learning anything from Nixey but may return to it.
Got a 2nd hand copy of the "Gormenghast" trilogy by Mervyn Peake so I plan on rereading that for the first time in over 20 years.
In a bizarre twist that can only happen in one of the biggest cities in the world, I've managed to run into a copy of a little book called Ανθολόγιο γιά τα παιδιά του δημοτικού (ἁνθολόγιο γιὰ τα παιδιὰ τοῡ δημοτικοῡ, actually, as it is in polytonic Greek, an anthology for children) for… a little over two dollars.
And with such titles available I get to see so many people reading crap like Twilight.
Moderator Action: Google translation: An anthology for children in elementary school (schoolbook for children) ~ Arakhor
And with such titles available I get to see so many people reading crap like Twilight.
Moderator Action: Google translation: An anthology for children in elementary school (schoolbook for children) ~ Arakhor
Last edited by a moderator:
As I understand it, both of those books are bunk. Accurate impression?
Don't know that I know enough about the subject to comment. Freeman's was well written and argued with lots of footnotes and references but may have been partial. Nixey was about the same level as Tom Holland, popular history with an agenda.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
A Guide to Chinese Eating by Kenneth Lo, published 1976 in Britain, a neat find from my favorite Toronto bookstore. Showcases the diversity of Chinese cuisine in its ingredients, methods, recipes, and restaurants. Designed to be accessible to the average Westerner at the time, there is not a single Chinese character in the text of the work.
Lexicus
Deity
dusters
Emperor
Where do you find memes like this?
On a side note - I'm going to read short stories of French writer Le Clezio.
Lexicus
Deity
This one was shared by a page called non-existent existentialist memes
sophie
Break My Heart
This hurts my heart. Every scientist should be made to read the metaphysical vs mathematical philosophy debate that dominated 18th century western philosophical discourse. Reading Newton, Clark, Leibnitz, Pascal, d'Alembert, Hume et al. agonizing over whether any of the observations they were making constituted "true knowledge", whether physics could ever be properly understood in its fullness, and what that might look like is fascinating to read. It should also be noted that the answer, in essence, was an adherence to epistemological modesty based on probabilistic outcomes. That is to say, an epistemological shoulder shrug.
The whole of science is built on very robust philosophical debates, and for any scientist to declare science to be post-philosophy is an unbelievably arrogant declaration to make. But then, most historians look down on the philosophy of history with more or less the same degree of disdain, so, what can you do?
The whole of science is built on very robust philosophical debates, and for any scientist to declare science to be post-philosophy is an unbelievably arrogant declaration to make. But then, most historians look down on the philosophy of history with more or less the same degree of disdain, so, what can you do?
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
I would consider all the guys on the right to be entertainers, media personalities, rather than "seekers after truth"
Freeman's a very smooth arguer because he's good at leaving the stuff that totally undermines his argument out - not just authorities to cite, but actual vast sectors of history.
He spends the early part of the book creating a make-believe picture of classical pre-Christian Greece and Rome as tolerant paradises of learning and science, despite the fact that many of the things that classical Greeks and Romans believed were utter quackery because of their own societal taboos and limitations, and despite the fact that the Roman Empire especially was remarkably good at murdering adherents of religions that it didn't like. The most obvious (but by no means the only) example of the latter is, obviously, Christianity, but Freeman elides much of the violence of the Roman persecutions by pointing out that some of it was exaggerated. Fair enough, but he fails to apply the same exacting standard to his juicy and salacious descriptions of what the Christians did when they got into power. Many of those are true, or at least true to the sources he uses, but by structuring his tale in this way Freeman creates this totally erroneous impression of Roman enlightenment and Christian religious intolerance and obscurantism.
Freeman also totally misreads much of Christian philosophy. He cherry-picks passages from John Chrysostom and Tertullian that contrast Greek learning with Christian faith, which, well, few people would argue that obscurantism was totally absent from the writings of Christians on philosophy. But the adoption and extension of most of the Greek philosophers' ideas by Christians, which was much more popular and a hallmark of the most well-known Christian writers, is totally ignored. Boethius doesn't even appear in his book, which is kind of a big deal since Boethius was The Guy who wrote extensively about the adoption of Greek philosophy and learning to help structure Christian thought. Augustine does appear, but Freeman basically just acknowledges his existence and then assigns him to a totally invalid philosophical stance. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, John of Damascus: many of the Christian writers who took up the pen of Greek philosophy don't really appear in Freeman's text, and the reason is obvious.
Freeman's book was not well reviewed in academia, mostly because of these egregious omissions. He felt persecuted and perceived the need to his back at his critics. For several years, he lurked his own Amazon.com reviews, ready to hit back at anybody who questioned his work, and terrorized a few blogging communities. His work has mostly survived due to the purchasing power of atheists who don't know the relevant history - and who could blame them, since antique and religious philosophy are subjects that nobody addresses in detail until undergraduate classes if then - and who want a comfortable lie. Which makes me mad, because that sort of thing makes atheism and rationalism look bad. I'm hardly an expert on the field, but I know enough to tell when I'm being played for a sucker, and Freeman's book was that.
Didn't read the other book, which is why I asked, but I've gotten the same impression of The Darkening Age from the reviewers I'm familiar with.
Lexicus
Deity
- Status
Similar threads
