Current Reads: What is Everyone Reading?

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RachelAnn
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Troy, NY

Post by RachelAnn » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:41 pm

Do you have any uplifting book recommendations?
Hoorah for the Bra: A Perky Peek at the History of the Brassiere by Cheree Berry.

Morpheus
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:19 pm
Location: UK

Post by Morpheus » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:58 pm

Right oh Rachel Ann I'm off down the library...I need some uplifting myself. :shock: :D

bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi » Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:04 pm

:lol:

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by Duncan Butlin » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:17 am

Good evening, RachelAnn,

You are spot on: exaggerating, embellishing, or adorning a statement, just to make is sound more impressive, is one of the great human temptations. Even those who make a habit of telling the truth can fall foul of this one. I think it must originate in the oral tradition of handing down stories from generation to generation. Only last week I had to revise the quote I’m most proud of, which I have been spouting far and wide for the last ten years! I suddenly realised it was not true: I had been using an ‘all’ instead of a ‘most’, just to bolster my case. Thanks for pin-pointing the problem.

But you are wrong to say that rules should always be regarded as guidelines. Sometimes we must draw a line in the sand, however artificial it may seem. We have to change a guideline into a concrete confrontation -- sometimes on pain of death. It is clear this is necessary in times of war and to control criminal acts, but it is also necessary when bringing up a child -- at what point should a child be grounded, for example? It has to be a hard and fast rule. I would even suggest we need such rules for speaking and writing in public -- despite the popularity of untrammelled free speech. We do, of course, already have limitations, but I think they need both extending and tightening up. Particularly about lying. More importantly, I think our informal rules need reaffirming: manners, etiquette, politeness. In a permissive society, I fear all the niceties go to pot.

You see, George Orwell was on far shakier ground, when it came to the subject of sex. He ended up setting an atrocious example -- despite apparently successful marriages. In his book ‘1984’, his hero Winston has the most unbelievably violent sexual fantasies, as Mr. Orwell so eloquently elaborates, including clubbing young women as part of the act, and then slitting their throats at the point of orgasm. I honestly believe such words should not be allowed in a public forum. I write them here (toned down) in the hopes of shocking you into agreeing with me.

Swearing in public is the key. Even on TV. Prevent it, and more serious misbehaviour naturally declines. Coerced into exhibiting good manners, the would be thug finds it far harder to sin. It is virtually impossible to smile openly at somebody one moment, only to try to steal from him the next.

These are old-fashioned ideas, but that need not disqualify them -- not everything in life needs to be changed. Not everything new is for the better. Consider the rise to power of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. We certainly had to turn the clock back on that lot!

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by Rortabend » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:18 am

Swearing in public is the key.
Too fucking right it is.

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by Duncan Butlin » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:56 pm

Rortabend, go to the back of the class. There are ladies present -- do you think they appreciate your vulgarity? Do you think it attracts them to you? “Only joking”, you say . . . but are you absolutely sure? Weren’t you trying to upset me just a little bit?, deep, deep inside?

Of course you were. You were laughing AT me, not with me -- knowing I would never join in. This is dishonest humour, and is better left well alone. Speak with a forked tongue too many times, and people will start to ignore you.

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by Rortabend » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:22 pm

There are ladies present -- do you think they appreciate your vulgarity?
The only one who seems to be upset is you.
Do you think it attracts them to you?
Probably not but I'm happily married so I don't really care. Having said this, a little bit of swearing is probably preferable to the misogynistic rubbish you come out with. N'est pas?

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by Duncan Butlin » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:19 pm

Rortabend, you have no basis for calling me a misogynist. Nowhere have I said that I dislike women, and I certainly appear to like them more than you! Your cavalier attitude towards all of them, other than your wife, makes you sound quite heartless. So you enjoy insulting other women at parties, do you? I don’t believe it for one minute.

Accordingly, I must send you to Coventry too, until you apologise.

amateurphilosophynerd
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:07 am
Contact:

Book 13 'Eat that Frog' Brian Tracey

Post by amateurphilosophynerd » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:28 pm

I have just read 'Eat that Frog' Brian Tracey.
Reason:apart from the need to imbibe wisdom such as found on it's pages is that the Financial Times recomended it as part of a Series on Business Self Improvement. my reasoning is if the FT are recomending it for businessmen then it is good enough for me; hence qaulity control.
Kearney and Rainwater Continental Philosophy Readings
and Charmaz 'Constructing Grounded Theory' for end of year readings.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:04 pm

Duncan Butlin wrote:At the moment I am reading “What is Nature?”, by Kate Soper, 1995, Blackwell. It has almost defeated me. As with all the postmodernists I have read, Professor Soper is trying to tie up her reader’s mind in knots. Right in the introduction she states her determination to avoid answering her title! Every word she writes is a torture, but I am determined not to give up, because it is the only way I can correspond with her again. She has directed me to Chapter 4 (Nature and Sexual Politics) and I feel I must read it before replying to her. In fact I have undertaken to bother her no more, if I cannot prove my point using her own words. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
:D Kate Sopers still going!? She's a 'post-modernist' now? You wanna try having her critique your essay in a tutorial. Mind like a steel-trap. She used to scare the shit out of me. Gawd bless 'er!
p.s.
I bet she's well impressed with your opinions :lol:
p.p.s
apologies "...some of your opinions"
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:08 pm

Duncan Butlin wrote:...Consider the rise to power of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. We certainly had to turn the clock back on that lot!
Thats a bit disingenuous as Stalin and Mao's legacy appear fairly intact and thriving and we supported Pol Pot in his counter revolution. Hitler I'll give you.

amateurphilosophynerd
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:07 am
Contact:

Post by amateurphilosophynerd » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:19 pm

I am back on Book 14 Kearney and Rainwater Anthology of Continental Philosophy currently reading an excerpt from Martin Heidegger on Being and Time. He makes some interesting arguments.

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by Duncan Butlin » Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:19 pm

Good afternoon, Amateur Philosopher,

Glad to see you active! But I must warn you: Martin Heidegger is not out to clarify your mind, he is out to tie it up in knots! Please believe me. None of the existentialists believe in human nature (let alone men’s and women’s natures) -- in fact this is their defining characteristic -- and this is simply nonsense. It is not worth listening to any of them. The fact that he also showed some sympathy for Jacques Derrida’s ‘Deconstructionism’ (the destruction of masculinity) puts him even further beyond the pale. DON’T WASTE ANY TIME ON HIM! Please.

amateurphilosophynerd
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:07 am
Contact:

Post by amateurphilosophynerd » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:26 pm

Duncan
in the most loving caring fair way I can say this.
I WILL DEFEND MY RIGHT TO READ CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHERS INDEED ANY PHILOSOPHERS AND ANY BOOKS THAT TAKES MY FANCY INCLUDING SHOCK HORROR AS CHRISTIAN BANNED BOOKS!!!!! CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS ETC ( I might have to draw the line somewhere but it hasnt happened yet I am not ammoral).
From what I have seen on these Forums Analytic philosphers from Oxford would not touch continentals with a barge pole and no doubt there are similar cleavages where WOE BETIDE if you read this book that book, that philosopher that sociologist etc. MY POSITION I WILL READ WHAT I LIKE UNLESS OTHERWISE that way I get to see the controversies arguments etc in their full raw uncommentated form.
ON THE MALE FEMALE THING
Christian groups favour men in charge. I would have a PARTNER non emasculated masculinity and a FRIEND BEST FRIEND** and not being engaged in patriarchal domestic sexual enslavement.
My position is more clarified by this:
Sins of men against women
rape

domestic enslavement
sexaul slavery
young floozy abandoning real love because of age trading in for a younger model (obscene)
pornography (not sure of this one and the need for sex lessons if one is unsure of oneself in this untested department) only just porn ie no dodgy stuff or illegal.

worshipping the platonic illusory ideal propagated by womens magazines I have an annual sub to tatler www.tatler.co.uk
and bypassing REAL WOMEN (doves viral real women campaign and gok chan Miss naked beauty is more my cup of tea however beautifully clad in chanel etc) raping women of male love sexaul companionship abandoning women to a men free existence
SINS OF WOMEN AGAINST MEN
emasculation de maled
female rape and sexaul abuse (neighbour raped by women who sat on top of his equipment and raped him)
threatening amazonian
dykes??
de-feminized feminine
violence of women against men
male victims in various ways
I think in lieu of this my academic analysis would fall on both camps in rebalancing slant to female needs for emanciptation to maybe BOTH SEX EMANCIPATION using my continentals.
Duncan i hope you are big enough to take it you have it in you babe
love kate

Richard Baron
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:55 am
Contact:

Post by Richard Baron » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:58 pm

amateurphilosophynerd wrote: I WILL DEFEND MY RIGHT TO READ CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHERS INDEED ANY PHILOSOPHERS AND ANY BOOKS THAT TAKES MY FANCY INCLUDING SHOCK HORROR AS CHRISTIAN BANNED BOOKS!!!!!
Quite right too. Descartes' Meditations was on the Roman Catholic Index of Prohibited Books right up until the Index ceased to have binding force in 1966. (Its memory lives on as a warning that some books might be a danger to faith or morals.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests