Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › What book are you reading right now?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What book are you reading right now? - Page 209

post #3121 of 3807

Back to BOOKS WE ARE READING.............

 

Lee Child - Never Go Back (the latest installment of the Jack Reacher series)

post #3122 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregonian View Post
 

Back to BOOKS WE ARE READING.............

 

Lee Child - Never Go Back (the latest installment of the Jack Reacher series)

 

Next up for me. How is it compared to the others in the series?

post #3123 of 3807

loved the first one and this one also won the booker prize, unheard of for a sequel! I hope it will be as good. 

 

post #3124 of 3807

by the way, i am not listening to the audio book, thats just the image

post #3125 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post
 

 

Again you narrow definition of "knowledge" according to your bias. You are trying to say that only "scientific" knowledge is true and other experiences are false.

 

I prefer to separate religion and science in their goals. They DO contradict each other but they don't eliminate each other. Religion uses the process when the mind moves from outside to inside. Science uses the process when the mind travels from inside to outside, i.e. in opposite direction.

 

They are different tools for different jobs. To learn about the world I would use science. To learn about soul I would go to religion.

 

No, I'm saying the best proven method for truth approximation is science, the most common method for projecting subconscious emotions (or just plain wish thinking) is religion.

 

You can call this 'a mystical personal experience, transformation of consciousness' or even 'knowledge'...fine  it is what it is..

 

For me personally it's obviously a poor method for self reflection, I rather do my self reflection through the various kinds of arts, science and literature.

 

What you're saying here is I, or atheists in general, don't understand the concept of ' soul' or religion, I'm saying that's utter baloney..

 

 

-I'll leave it with this-

 

edit-  clip of this 'aweful' man

 


Edited by Quinto - 9/12/13 at 4:16am
post #3126 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saraguie View Post
 

 

Next up for me. How is it compared to the others in the series?

I'm only 40 pages in but it's a page turner......................

post #3127 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Again you narrow definition of "knowledge" according to your bias. You are trying to say that only "scientific" knowledge is true and other experiences are false.

I prefer to separate religion and science in their goals. They DO contradict each other but they don't eliminate each other. Religion uses the process when the mind moves from outside to inside. Science uses the process when the mind travels from inside to outside, i.e. in opposite direction.

They are different tools for different jobs. To learn about the world I would use science. To learn about soul I would go to religion.

An interesting, concise perspective. I dig it.
post #3128 of 3807

 

Interesting read!

post #3129 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregonian View Post
 

I'm only 40 pages in but it's a page turner......................

 

Can't wait, thanks.

 

Reading now:

 

 

Every parent should give it read.

post #3130 of 3807
The Jericho Deception by Jeffery Small.

post #3131 of 3807

Nietzche "The Anti-Christ"

 

 

 

From Wiki:

 

Quote:
 

On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse. Two policemen approached him after he caused a public disturbance in the streets of Turin. What happened remains unknown, but an often-repeated tale from shortly after his death states that Nietzsche witnessed the flogging of a horse at the other end of the Piazza Carlo Alberto, ran to the horse, threw his arms up around its neck to protect it, and then collapsed to the ground.

In the following few days, Nietzsche sent short writings—known as the Wahnbriefe ("Madness Letters")—to a number of friends including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt. Most of them were signed "Dionysos". To his former colleague Burckhardt, Nietzsche wrote: "I have had Caiaphas put infetters. Also, last year I was crucified by the German doctors in a very drawn-out manner. Wilhelm, Bismarck, and all anti-Semites abolished." Additionally, he commanded the German emperor to go to Rome to be shot and summoned the European powers to take military action against Germany.

 

Nietzche wrote his Anti-Christ in 1888 just before his mental collapse after which he had become an invalid for the rest of his life under the supervision of his relatives. At the end of The Anti-Christ he wrote that he considered Germans his enemies. On which ground did he curse his nation ( he pretended to be of Polish origin which was highly unlikely)? I think that he thought that they were particularly guilty in supporting "decadence" ( an anti-life worldview). In Roman empire he saw a great example of a life affirming worldview. That is why as I think in "Madness Letters" he commanded the German emperor to go to Rome to be shot. He was definitely mentally ill when he wrote Anti-Christ and some other works of the same period.

 

In my opinion patient Nietzche's case was his maniacal opposition to his former Guru Arthur Schopenhauer. He started to write his philosophical books pretty late right at the time when his physical condition was seriously damaged. When he instinctively understood that his health was caput he started grabbing at life, started to affirm it as if he was trying to convince himself that he could overcome degradation. The closer he got to the point of madness, the more angry he got. Anti-Christ was almost a continuous barking and cursing. Almost every sentence is a declaration. He closely follows Schopenhauer's ethics but turns it upside down.

 

By the way in the Anti-Christ he cursed socialists too, calling them decadents. That is why he was banned in the Soviet Union despite his "useful" anti-Christian rhetoric.


Edited by mutabor - 9/15/13 at 1:15pm
post #3132 of 3807

Birth of Tragedy was his first book I ever read and I still like that one best..

 

Although the man had a wonderful use of language, his style of aphorisms was a limitation IMO, on the other hand it does make you think harder ..

 

Great man, tormented soul...Rudiger Safranski wrote a very good book about Nietzsche..

post #3133 of 3807

 I've found an interesting article about Nietzche and Wagner relationship. It seems that there was a triangle Nietzche - Wagner's wife Cosima - Wagner. It seems that Nietzche fell in love with Cosima ( Ariadne) and then became an enemy to his friend Wagner.

 

In 1876 Nietzche broke his relationship with Wagner.

 

"With the publication in 1878 of Human, All Too Human (a book of aphorisms ranging from metaphysics to morality to religion to gender studies), a new style of Nietzsche's work became clear, highly influenced by Afrikan Spir's Thought and Reality[67] and reacting against the pessimistic philosophy of Wagner and Schopenhauer."

 

So what do we see. In 1873-1876 Nietzche writes books praising Wagner and Schopenhauer. Then in 1876 there is a conflict between him and Wagner ( possibly because Friedrich fell in love with Cosima?). In 1878 Nietzche writes his first philosophical book where he bashes Wagner and Schopenhauer.

 

Can it be that all later Nietzche's books were targeted to destroy his personal enemy Wagner and Wagner's views which were seriously influenced by Schopenhauer's? Because I clearly see while reading Nietzche that he is constantly argues with Schopenhauer and opposes him. His intentions are to undermine his opponent. His views are not independent. For example, Nietzche doesn't bash Christianity by itself - he bashes Schopenhauer because he approved Christianity. Nietzche bashes antisemitism because Wagner and Schopenhauer were antisemites. All Nietzche's concepts are mirror opposite to Schopenhauer's, nothing is original.


Edited by mutabor - 9/15/13 at 2:42pm
post #3134 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post
 

 I've found an interesting article about Nietzche and Wagner relationship. It seems that there was a triangle Nietzche - Wagner's wife Cosima - Wagner. It seems that Nietzche fell in love with Cosima ( Ariadne) and then became an enemy to his friend Wagner.

 

In 1876 Nietzche broke his relationship with Wagner.

 

"With the publication in 1878 of Human, All Too Human (a book of aphorisms ranging from metaphysics to morality to religion to gender studies), a new style of Nietzsche's work became clear, highly influenced by Afrikan Spir's Thought and Reality[67] and reacting against the pessimistic philosophy of Wagner and Schopenhauer."

 

So what do we see. In 1873-1876 Nietzche writes books praising Wagner and Schopenhauer. Then in 1876 there is a conflict between him and Wagner ( possibly because Friedrich fell in love with Cosima?). In 1878 Nietzche writes his first philosophical book where he bashes Wagner and Schopenhauer.

 

Can it be that all later Nietzche's books were targeted to destroy his personal enemy Wagner and Wagner's views which were seriously influenced by Schopenhauer's? Because I clearly see while reading Nietzche that he is constantly argues with Schopenhauer and opposes him. His intentions are to undermine his opponent. His views are not independent. For example, Nietzche doesn't bash Christianity by itself - he bashes Schopenhauer because he approved Christianity. Nietzche bashes antisemitism because Wagner and Schopenhauer were antisemites. All Nietzche's concepts are mirror opposite to Schopenhauer's, nothing is original.

 

Nietzsche wrote a book 'The Case of Wagner', interesting read.

 

Furthermore for me filling in writers/philosofers intentions isn't very useful because it's an obvious slippery slope and it will get you nowhere.

 

So use the word 'criticise' instead of 'bashing' because you can't bring in a negative without at least a rational.

 

Just sayin..

post #3135 of 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinto View Post
 

 

 

Furthermore for me filling in writers/philosofers intentions isn't very useful because it's an obvious slippery slope and it will get you nowhere.

 

So use the word 'criticise' instead of 'bashing' because you can't bring in a negative without at least a rational.

 

Just sayin..

 

No, the word "criticize" doesn't convey an intensity of Nietzche's anger. One of his books is even called Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer. By throwing hammer you bash, hit really hard. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › What book are you reading right now?