What book are you reading?

[CountArach]

Wait till you see what I'm planning to read next...

Adam Smith?

Anyway, I'm reading Suetonius' Life of Domitian and I am soon to read Tacitus' Agricola.

[Kralizec]

Right now only college books, including two about psychiatry (for an optional course, it's not what I study)

[Yoyoma1910]

Right now only college books, including two about psychiatry (for an optional course, it's not what I study)

Mmmm-hmmm that not what you study... yah, yah... mmmm-hmmm....


Why don't you lay on the couch right there and tell us about your mother?

[Kralizec]

[Subedei]

"History of the Baiuvarii" by I forgot...will look it up.

Very interesting book, as it provides lots of detailed archeological accounts of sites in my region. Gotta do some travelling...yeah!

[Hooahguy]

"Band of Brothers"
by Stephen Ambrose

gonig to watch TV series later.....

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've been reading on the classic thinkers recently. Aristotle: The Politics, Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's Discourses, the Prince etc.

The basics really because we only start these topics in our second year...

[Thermal]

You are reading "Of Mice and Men" in Year 10? Last year we just did all our coursework, we only gonna start "Of Mice and Men" after Christmas (I take it that the book is bad?)

Currently reading "Vietnam: A War Lost and Won" for my coursework.

actually, with the help of a funny english teacher, i gave the wrong impression, its quite intreseting now
about to people called lennie and george who go to a ranch for money to get there own farm and live off of the 'fat of the lan'
only Lennie relys on george completely, hes dumb clumsy fool, but is kind inside, its quite complex but relatively short, 6 sections, ive got to the fifth section, just as lennie accidently kills a puppy...it is funny in parts

[Fragony]

I've been reading on the classic thinkers recently. Aristotle: The Politics, Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's Discourses, the Prince etc.

The basics really because we only start these topics in our second year...

Machiavelli is a joy to read, Morgentau is a wuss. Aristotle and Plato are unreadable if you ask me not fun at all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Machiavelli is a joy to read, Morgentau is a wuss. Aristotle and Plato are unreadable if you ask me not fun at all.

Agreed. Aristotle's ideas are so vague I've no idea why everyone thinks he's so clever. Machiavelli actually fits his ideologies into practical ideas, much more interesting to read IMO.

[Ramses II CP]

Of Mice and Men is a decent book. The themes are a little obvious and the story itself is quite manipulative towards the reader (To some extent even condescendingly manipulative), but overall it's an enjoyable book.

I thought Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath was a more interesting book, especially since it directly attacked some of the social taboos of the era. There's less blatant manipulation in GoW and the ending is not at all obvious. Ultimately it serves as a good counterpoint to M&M since, at least IMHO, it reverses Steinbecks's thrust of attack and implies that the chaos of the Great Depression was primarily an institutional, top down problem, and not due to local prejudice or ignorance, as M&M can be interpreted to suppose.

I understand why M&M is more often taught, but I find it a substantially less interesting book as well. It's very difficult to identify with a character who is presented as quite intelligent and yet who is written to repeatedly do foolish things.

You have to consider the translation and the period when pursuing Aristotle or Plato. Plato is particularly inapplicable to modern life and his ideas are almost purely mental excercises with zero practical application. Aristotle took a broader, more realisitic view and as a result laid the groundwork for the western concepts of moral philosophy and in some ways science itself. When you read Aristotle try to put yourself in the mindset of someone to whom the idea of building a large idea out of the details of small observed facts is alien. The western tradition of philosophy before Aristotle was based almost exclusively (generalization alert!) on ideas that were assumed to be universally acknowledged by acclaim rather than discoverable in and of themselves.

Which is to say that unexamined beliefs which were popular at the time formed the basis of the various philosophical systems. This was one of the core values that Socrates himself often took aim at, though it's generally accepted that he proposed no comprehensive system to replace it. Aristotle proposed a system, crudely, by which beliefs could be evaluated for their utility before they were incorporated into a larger philosophy, thus resulting in, most importantly, a more consistent philosophical end product. That's one of the core concepts underlying our idea of the scientific method. It's so widely accepted in the west today that it's very, very difficult to get people to set it aside when they first approach Aristotle's works, which can be why they don't seem very interesting.

Imagine if we lived in a society where common assumptions were accepted not just as true, but as a valid basis for the organization of society and science. Studies show that the majority of Americans, for example, believe in angels. Now imagine a scientist who publishes a paper saying that he got in touch with those angels and they told him some things about how the world works, for example who to vote for in the elections and what causes earthquakes (Voting for the wrong person perhaps!). In Aristotle's day, that was science, virtually by definition. Men who had a reputation for wisdom could say anything, even things that couldn't be verified, and it was taken for truth. Not so today, and in no small part due to Aristotle's work. Be grateful.

...but, yes, it can be hard to muddle through, especially if you've got a questionable translation.

[Fragony]

Agreed. Aristotle's ideas are so vague I've no idea why everyone thinks he's so clever. Machiavelli actually fits his ideologies into practical ideas, much more interesting to read IMO.

I find it stupid students have to read that crap, why is it not enough to know their points. The actual texts are only interesting if are into greek poetry/literature.

[Thermal]

Of Mice and Men is a decent book. The themes are a little obvious and the story itself is quite manipulative towards the reader (To some extent even condescendingly manipulative), but overall it's an enjoyable book.

I thought Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath was a more interesting book, especially since it directly attacked some of the social taboos of the era. There's less blatant manipulation in GoW and the ending is not at all obvious. Ultimately it serves as a good counterpoint to M&M since, at least IMHO, it reverses Steinbecks's thrust of attack and implies that the chaos of the Great Depression was primarily an institutional, top down problem, and not due to local prejudice or ignorance, as M&M can be interpreted to suppose.

I understand why M&M is more often taught, but I find it a substantially less interesting book as well. It's very difficult to identify with a character who is presented as quite intelligent and yet who is written to repeatedly do foolish things.

You have to consider the translation and the period when pursuing Aristotle or Plato. Plato is particularly inapplicable to modern life and his ideas are almost purely mental excercises with zero practical application. Aristotle took a broader, more realisitic view and as a result laid the groundwork for the western concepts of moral philosophy and in some ways science itself. When you read Aristotle try to put yourself in the mindset of someone to whom the idea of building a large idea out of the details of small observed facts is alien. The western tradition of philosophy before Aristotle was based almost exclusively (generalization alert!) on ideas that were assumed to be universally acknowledged by acclaim rather than discoverable in and of themselves.

Which is to say that unexamined beliefs which were popular at the time formed the basis of the various philosophical systems. This was one of the core values that Socrates himself often took aim at, though it's generally accepted that he proposed no comprehensive system to replace it. Aristotle proposed a system, crudely, by which beliefs could be evaluated for their utility before they were incorporated into a larger philosophy, thus resulting in, most importantly, a more consistent philosophical end product. That's one of the core concepts underlying our idea of the scientific method. It's so widely accepted in the west today that it's very, very difficult to get people to set it aside when they first approach Aristotle's works, which can be why they don't seem very interesting.

Imagine if we lived in a society where common assumptions were accepted not just as true, but as a valid basis for the organization of society and science. Studies show that the majority of Americans, for example, believe in angels. Now imagine a scientist who publishes a paper saying that he got in touch with those angels and they told him some things about how the world works, for example who to vote for in the elections and what causes earthquakes (Voting for the wrong person perhaps!). In Aristotle's day, that was science, virtually by definition. Men who had a reputation for wisdom could say anything, even things that couldn't be verified, and it was taken for truth. Not so today, and in no small part due to Aristotle's work. Be grateful.

...but, yes, it can be hard to muddle through, especially if you've got a questionable translation.

well we've been told steinbeck was always on the side of the underdog, i think the characters are easy enough to identify, at the time it was made the 'american dream' was desired more than ever, as a massive economy fall took place, coincedencely as is happening around now

[CountArach]

Agreed. Aristotle's ideas are so vague I've no idea why everyone thinks he's so clever.

Hmmm. I have read many parts of it for Philosophy and I understodd it at first (For the most part), however it became much clearer to me once it was explained. He really was an intelligent man for his time and that context is something we should remember.

[Fragony]

Shake hands with the Devil, Romeo Dallaire. A must read if you have the stomach for it. And your stomach will be tested. Rwanda, it's the place to be.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Six Frigates :The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy
Ian W. Toll

[TevashSzat]

I've been reading Chaucer's The Cantebury Tales, the untranslated version. Middle English looks alot harder than it actually is to read. I only need minimal footnotes to understand everything. Also, it is actually readable compared the the god awful horrendous stream of consciousness stuf I had to read before

[Alexanderofmacedon]

In the middle of "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer. Great book by a great man...(a bit blind at times, though).

[Decker]

Six Frigates :The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy
Ian W. Toll

That's an interesting looking book. Lemme know how this goes

And I just finished reading Doubt. It's not necessarily a book as it is more a playwrite. I found it to be VEEERY good and entertaining. It's quite a short read and could be done in about an hour of solid reading or less. I'd suggest anyone who has the time to get to the library, pull it and read it. Shouldn't have to check it out

And right now I am currently reading Fahrenheit 451 for my english class. I've only just finished the first chapter and it's already reminding me of 1984 lol. I've always wanted to read this so this is a treat

[Martok]

Just started re-reading In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Harry Turtledove. While I like his Guns of the South and (especially) Ruled Britannia more, it's still a good read.

[Ferret]

Burning Shore by Wilbur Smith

[Craterus]

Nineteen Eighty-Four and A Clockwork Orange

[Megas Methuselah]

Oh, God... Well, here we go:

The exact and trve relation of that bloody battell fought betweene his Royall Majeftie of Swethland, and the Imperiall Army the 5 and 6. of November 1632. In the which battell his Majeftie was killed. Befides Luelzen, two Germane myles from Leipfeich.
Written from Erdfoord by a worthie Captaine the 12 of November, who was an eye witneffe to the Battell.
Edinbvrgh, Printed by John Wrettoun, 1633

Yeah, yeah. Go ahead, laugh. It's for my history essay.

[Decker]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

SHhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!.......... Don't speak, don't think, just DO

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Have just finished Ilium by Dan Simmons. ! Personally I think its brilliant. My friend recommended by saying that he was completely confused by it but that it would be right up my alley... Lol. He was right.

A bizarre combination of an Iliad with real Gods/Goddesses, a far future earth where people are somewhat like the Eloi from H.G. Wells's Time Machine, and some partly organic robots fromthe moons of Jupiter with an unexplainable interest in Shakespeare and Proust, all narrated by a 20th century classics professor who is trying to turn the Greeks and Trojans against the Gods!!!

Convoluted and very confusing, but well worth reading if you have the time and inclination.

Just started rereading A Feast for Crows By George Martin.

[drone]

Zipped through Fight Club on a flight back from Austin. Good read, the movie was pretty faithful to it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

@ Decker - Six Frigates was excellent, I recommend it.

Just started, Champlain's Dream by David Hackett Fischer.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Re-reading Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy. Such a great book for anyone interested in Roman warfare.

[TWFanatic]

On the Meaning of Life, by John Cottingham.

Self-explanatory title.

[naut]

Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche.