Unforbidden Pleasures

by Adam Phillips

So much has been written about forbidden pleasures. What about pleasures that are unforbidden?

Society is fascinated by taboo - we spend our lives chasing illicit pleasures - but nobody pays much attention to all the unforbidden pleasures freely available to us every day. Could we be gaining just as much reward from these unnoticed, unforbidden indulgences as from the much-glorified forbidden - or even more?

Starting with Oscar Wilde, Adam Phillips elegantly unfolds all the meanings and significances of the Unforbidden, from Genesis to Freud and his 20th century colleagues. Unforbidden Pleasures explores the philosophical, psychological and social complexities that govern human desire and shape our reality.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays, Psychoanalysis, Theory, Unfinished

198 pages, Paperback

First published November 5, 2015

About the author

Adam Phillips is a British psychotherapist and essayist.

Since 2003 he has been the general editor of the new Penguin Modern Classics translations of Sigmund Freud. He is also a regular contributor to the London Review of Books.

Phillips was born in Cardiff, Wales in 1954, the child of second-generation Polish Jews. He grew up as part of an extended family of aunts, uncles and cousins and describes his parents as "very consciously Jewish but not believing". As a child, his first interest was the study of tropical birds and it was not until adolescence that he developed an interest in literature. He went on to study English at St John's College, Oxford, graduating with a third class degree. His defining influences are literary – he was inspired to become a psychoanalyst after reading Carl Jung's autobiography and he has always believed psychoanalysis to be closer to poetry than medicine.

Adapted from Wikipedia.

Phillips is a regular contributor to the London Review of Books. He has been described by The Times as "the Martin Amis of British psychoanalysis" for his "brilliantly amusing and often profoundly unsettling" work; and by John Banville as "one of the finest prose stylists in the language, an Emerson of our time."

Reviews

[Cecily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Name-dropping

This starts by exploring Oscar Wilde’s ideas about temptation and art, but it becomes densely tangled in theories of psychoanalysis. Along the way, Phillips cites a huge number of famous philosophers and writers, including: Freud, Nietzsche, Jung, Klein, Milton, John Stuart Mill, Sartre, Hobbes, Shakespeare (especially Hamlet), Schopenhauer, Socrates, Plato, Sophocles (especially Oedipus), Cervantes, Darwin, Larkin, Bowlby, Matthew Arnold, and Swift.

By the end, I couldn’t decide if I felt more enlightened or more ignorant.

Psychoanalysis is mainly about exploring forbidden desires; this book looks at the converse, but with a psychoanalytic lens. Thus, there’s a lot about rules and taboos, and how compliance is learned and enforced.

Ideas and quotes

I don’t necessarily agree with all of these; I’m still mulling them over:

“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” Oscar Wilde nails an aspect of the current culture wars: because I don’t approve of xyz, no one should be allowed to do xyz.

“To forbid something is to define it.” and make it desirable.
“To forbid something is to make it unforgettable… It is to arrange a haunting.”

Image: “Don’t think about the monster under the bed…” (Source)

Obedience is enforced, whether tacitly or explicitly, by promises and punishment.
Rules should be tested, but not necessarily broken.

Are unforbidden pleasures inherently less pleasurable and less interesting?

There’s a big difference between not doing something because you fear punishment and not doing it because you believe it’s wrong. As an atheist, I’m very conscious of that.

“You only find out what your obedience entails, what it has been costing you, when you are disobedient.”

“We do not have laws because we have desires: we have desires because we have laws… The law arranges our wanting for us.”

“All moral questions are questions of obedience.” But obedience to whom and what?
“What did I consent to, and what did I have to submit to?”
Guilt is a clue as to what we fear, not necessarily what is wrong, and our greatest fear is loss of love.

“In growing up, natural innocence is replaced by unoriginal sin.”

Give yourself permission for joy.

Tragedy is inevitable, too. Nietzsche said the ancient Greeks were “the finest, most beautiful, most envied race of men… they of all people needed tragedy”

“Those who want to change us are those who want to persuade us that we have got our pleasures wrong.”

What stuck with me most is Hans Monderman: a Dutch traffic engineer who pioneered the idea of shared space (I knew the concept, but not the originator). By removing traffic lights, and also things like kerbs and road markings, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians have to take full responsibility, and accidents decrease. It’s the “unforbidden pleasure of cooperation”, rather than blindly following rules and outsourcing our decision-making.


Image: “Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London: a shared space since 2012” (Source)

Why I read this

I read this because my therapist mentioned it, mainly for the title: we talked about the importance of playfulness (experimenting and creating, without caring about the result) as self-care. However, when I looked it up, I liked the sound of the literary aspect. It was interesting, and maybe helpful, but a lot of it went over my head. When I saw my GP a couple of weeks ago to discuss my medication, she asked about my mood, and after I’d told her at some length, she observed that I was “a thinker” and swapped me to a different antidepressant. If I mention this book, I’m not sure if it will confirm or refute her impression.

[Mahla · Rating 4 out of 5]

.
جذابیت اثر اول، باعث شد تا در دومین کتاب هم، کنجکاوانه پیگیر قلم و رویکرد آدام فیلیپس بمانم. «لذت‌های ناممنوع» بیانه‌ای خروشان بر علیهٔ نظم و نظام مستقر در پسِ تمام باید و نبایدهای پذیرفته شدهٔ زیست انسانی است. کتاب با ستایش ضمنیِ مفهوم آزادیِ منفی برلین، به تاختِ بنیادهای ارزشی می‌رود. بخش مهمی از جذابیت کتاب، بیان روانکاوی است که جنس ادبیات و نویسندگان ادبی را به خوبی می‌شناسد و جایی که از انسانِ آزاد مطلوب سخن می‌گوید، با هوشمندی پای هملت را به میدان باز می‌کند. من «لذّت‌های ناممنوع» را به منطقهٔ مجاز تعبیر می‌کنم، قلمرویی امن که چراگاهِ اخلاق است. نویسنده در سراسر کتاب می‌کوشد تا پرسشی ساخت‌گرایانه را در بابِ چرایی و چیستی امر اخلاقی مطرح کند. او با طرح پرسش‌های محتاطانه، کم کم پای اخلاق را از منطقهٔ مجاز به قلمروی پرواز ممنوع باز می‌کند.
کتاب با هدایت‌گریِ زیرکانه‌ای، خواننده را در طرح پرسش‌های مخاطره آمیز پیش می‌راند؛ رفته رفته مرز میان منطقهٔ مجاز و ممنوعه را مخدوش می‌سازد و او را با سرگردانی در قلمرو پوچی رها می‌کند. آدام فیلیپس از خواننده‌اش می‌خواهد تا بر علیهٔ باورها و پیش داوری‌ها ایستادگی کند و جز «از برایِ خویشتن» به پیروی هیچ آئین و مسلکی درنیاید. این زیستِ تحول‌خواهانه، آنجا که به رهنمود هنر و هنرمند مبدل می‌شود، کلامی راهگشاست؛ اما آنجا که «انسان» را با خوانش نیهیلیستی از زندگی تنها می‌گذارد، بی‌رحمانه ظاهر می‌شود. ارجاعات مختلف به لویاتان، نشان می‌دهد که متن «هابز» را می‌شناسد، اما گویا نقل قول «انسان، گرگ انسان است» را پشت گوش انداخته است. کتاب آدمی را، هرچه بیشتر به عقب‌نشینی به مرزهای «خود» ترغیب می‌کند و معتقد است وجدان آدمی یا همان سوپر ایگوی غرغرو و سرزنش‌گر او، برای به راه آوردنش زیاده‌روی می‌کند. آنچه نویسنده از آن غافل است، در تعریف خوشبینانه او از گناه نخستین نمایان می‌شود. او سرپیچی آدم و حوا را، احیاگر امید انسان در دستیابی به بهشت عدن تعریف می‌کند. بهشتی که پیش از آن داراییِ بی‌ارزشی در چنگ انسان بود. من در ارزیابی این واقعه با هابز هم‌نظرم. فرزند آدم، همواره بی‌تابِ چشیدن طعم آن سیب ممنوعه است. اگر تاریخ را بارها بازنویسی کنیم، قابیل به هابیل رحم نمی‌کند. گسترش قلمرو امر ممنوعه به امر ناممنوع، قباحت از شر نمی‌زداید؛ بلکه زمزمه‌های خفیف وجدان را به سکوت می‌کشاند.

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, maybe 4.5. I love Phillip's dense mix of literary criticism, Freudian psychology, psychotherapy, and philosophy. Despite the title, this book is almost more about how we react to the forbidden and it took me awhile to get into the groove of the book. Literary criticism ranged from Wilde to Shakespeare to Milton, with diversions through English Freudians and Nietzsche. Reading the book is like a fantastic, personalized therapy session that leaves you feeling invigorated and like any good therapy session -- slightly confused.

[Toby Wallis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a few of Adam Phillips other books of slightly hypnotic collections of philosophical, psychoanalytic essays and I have always found them worthwhile. This one I particularly enjoyed. He can be a bit dense with quotes and references sometimes, and the ponderous, meandering nature of his writing just seems to drift about so it's best to just drift along with it. If that sounds like a negative, I don't think it is. I think it is what makes Phillips such an intriguing essayist. It is like he is finding his way as he writes, and we're allowed to come along with him and see where we all end up.

Highly recommended.

[Jafar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't understand what the author was really trying to say. I blame psychoanalysis for that, not myself.

[Hosius Mr · Rating 3 out of 5]

چرا چیزهای ممنوعه بیشتر ما رو به خودشون جذب می کنن؟ شاید این اولین سوالی باشه که با دیدن اسم کتاب و خواندن چند صفحه اول به ذهنمون برسه!
.
کتاب کمی سخت خوان هست، در بعضی جاها پیچیدگی داره و از دید فلسفی و روانکاوانه به موضوع لذت نگاه می کنه. همین باعث میشه که کمی خسته کننده باشه و همه ازش لذت نبرن!

[Virginia Rand · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really dense writing and just ponderings. :-(

[Mark Valentine · Rating 5 out of 5]

It shouldn't seem an impossible task to explore how to put pleasure back into having pleasure. Phillips asked me, essentially, where is the pleasure in compliance, conformity? When our culture forbids an act, it signifies it as wrong to find pleasure in it. But that negation doesn't always work and further, what may be unforbidden may appear unpleasurable. Phillips argues for a restoration of the pleasure of pleasure.

He frequently cites Freud, Wilde and Nietzsche as his foundational authors. I know I have gained a deeper respect for Freud after reading Phillips' explanations of his viewpoints. But Wilde is still my favorite; especially this, noted near the end of the book: A dinner quest had become flustered listening to Wilde's enchanting riff on culture, ethics, and morality and asked him, "Mr. Wilde, don't you think morality is important?" to which he replied, "Yes, but I don't think importance is."

Phillips concludes by stating that those "who want us to change are those who want to persuade us that we have got our pleasures wrong." He quotes John Stuart Mill from On Liberty, "All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." Do you see the value in these words like I do? When I can ask myself what do I gain by being compliant to a power structure--what is it that I gain from by obsequious servility? the answer appears as safety, security, protection. Having the courage to re-define pleasure under the dome of what gets deemed unforbidden can be a liberating trajectory. It means that I am not one of the Living Dead, that I was not born dead, that I have a chance at living my life liberated from that which has already been deemed unforbidden.

[Veronica Ciastko · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to have read this book in an English or Philosophy class. It’s very good and interesting but I’m apparently a smooth-brained simpleton who hungers for examples and stories, so I struggled sometimes. I loved the rigor with which Phillips analyzes other writers. I might have to (gulp) read some Nietzsche.

[Kaplumbağa Felsefecisi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adam Phillips okuması yapmak, Türkiye'de Engin Geçtan'dan okuma yapmak gibi bir yerde benim için. Anlaşılır, yormayan, kuramlara boğulmadan, alıntılarla ilerleyerek size anlatmak istediği konu çerçevesinde bir düşünme hali sunuyor. Yasak olmayan hazlar kitabı da daha çok eleştirmek için yaptığı alıntılarıyla ilerledi.
İnsanların psikanalize kendi arzularının korkunçluğu ya da korkunç olarak adlandırmaları yüzünden yöneldiğine değiniyor yazar. Yasak arzu fikri olmasaydı psikanalizin de varolmayacağına... Hiçbir kural olmasaydı kendimizi güvende hissetmezdik ama tüm bunların yanında kurallar da güvenli değildir diyor. Yasakların bilişsel hale geldiği noktada, hiçbir yasağı tanımayan bebekler bile ailesinin ona tanımladığı ve çerçevelediği kurallar ve yasaklar çerçevesinde hayata atılıyor. Lawrence'in "bu yozlaşmış tabu çılgınlığına kapılan modern zihin" olarak tanımladığı zihinden cesaret ve risk ile çıkılabileceği ve yasak olmayan hazlara yönelinebileceği üzerine de duruyor. Hedonizmin varlığının birçok insanı ürküttüğü toplumda, gerçekten nasıl bir yasak ekseninde hayatı çekip çevirdiğimizi görmek için biraz güven anlayışımıza sığınmak zorundayız. Güven olarak gördüğümüz kuralların bizi daha da güvensiz hale sürüklediğine... Bunun sonu olayan bir döngü ile yüzleştirdiğine. Bir süredir üzerine düşündüğüm ve bir eylemi başından gerçekleştirmemek için kendimi ikna ettiğim tüm cümlelerimin her birinin yasaklananlar çerçevesinde olduğu ile yüzleştim diyebilirim. Bu dönem yaptığım okumalarım da beni aslında hareket halinde olarak aşabileceğim, kendimi durdurmak için kurduğum ve -biraz fazla kafa yorunca aşırı haklı gerekçelerimi- bütünüyle çiğnemem gerektiğini de bana gösterdi. Kendi kendimizi sınırlandırdığımız, yapamam, benim için kırmızı çizgi dediğimiz her şeyin bize öğretilen, güdülendiğimiz, bilişsel manada itildiğimiz, korkularımızın sonucu olduğunu görmek için o her neyse onu yaparak karar vermemiz gerekiyor. Bunu görmek, irdelemek tam da yazarın dediği gibi kuralların da  kuralsızlığın da mutsuzluğunu elimine etmek için ilk önce savaşmamız ve tanımamız  gereken şey tüm bu davranışların kökeninin ne olduğu, nereden geldiği ve harekete geçip aşılıp aşılamayacağını deneyimlemenin yasak olmayan bir haz vereceği. Yazar bir noktada tüm bunlardan yüzde yüz sıyrılabilmenin tek mümkününün hiç doğmamış olmak olduğuna dair onlarca cümle kurmuş. Ama hepimiz doğduk ve tam da bu yasak hazlarla örülü evrende cirit atıyoruz. O zaman haydi hepimize hayatta başarılar. :)

[Nate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much of this flew over my head, unfortunately. It wasn't a problem with the language, or the writers quoted, but rather with the ideas and the thesis of the book -- which I felt I didn't fully grasp. Perhaps I just don't know enough about psychoanalysis. I think this book was marketed as pop philosophy, when its audience might be a bit more niche than suggested.

I picked this up about a year ago, after reading a good review, gave up on half way in, then recently grabbed off my book shelf and finished. I do enjoy his taste in literature as well as his original interpretations of writers like Nietzsche and Cervantes (the latter of which only makes a brief appearance, but I had to include since I'm a fan). But again, most of this went over my head.

Unrelated to the writing; I'm a huge fan of the painter David Hockman; and this, along with Ali Smith's seasonal quartet, is an example of a book where somehow the US version has a different cover than the beautiful Hockney covers in Europe. Annoying! ;)

Edit: I noticed a lot of the comments/reviews for this book have also found it tough and dense; which makes me feel a bit better haha. A few people have mentioned that the ideas take slow reflection and perhaps even a second read. Even though I only rated this three stars, I'm not giving up on it! Might re-read a couple sections when the time is right; and who knows, maybe adjust my personal star rating at that point.

[Sara Tootoon]

کتاب سنگینیه برای کسی که از روانشناسی و ادبیات زیاد نمی‌دونه و بار فلسفیش هم زیاده اما به طور خیلی جذابی از زاویه‌ای جدید به لذت‌های ناممنوع و ممنوع می‌پردازه. انقدر بخش خودنکوهیش جمله‌های ناب داشت که چندبار می‌خوندم تا کامل جذبشون کنم. کتابی بود که تا تموم شد می‌خواستم دوباره بخونم و مطمئنم زود بهش برمی‌گردم

[Ben Askin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Winnicott, and others referenced here. Definitely my cup of tea.
A lot of focus on Silenus’s Wisdom and some beautiful references to poetry.
The book itself is a bit of a mish-mash. But there are sparks enough to keep you moving through.
To be or not to be or to have not have been at all is the resounding question throughout. Strangely, I found the cycling through the existentialism to be calming rather than anxiety provoking.
I liked the rumination on how preoccupied society is on what is forbidden, rather that what is unforbidden and thus taken for granted.

[Biggus Ryanus · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unforbidden Pleasures is a book Written by psychoanalyst and author about the nature of what is/isn't forbidden. It pulls from many different authors on many different talking points ranging from Freud and the Oedipus complex to Nietzsche's arguments for atheism. As it's under 200 pages, the book is a short read for most.
To begin with, It's not as if this book is bad, at points, in fact, I was quite interested, especially at the beginning with the discussion of Oscar Wilde, however, It just got too jumpy and complicated that the book lost me. I wasn't reading because I enjoyed it, but just to finish it as it's a fairly short book that felt like twice the length because of the writing. If you are already familiar with psychoanalysis and have no other books you want to read this could be good for you, but if not I'd find another.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping to get the same enlightenment that I got from reading other works on psychotherapy/philosophy, like Ernest Becker's works that I read shortly before this.

However, it often felt like writing things down beautifully eloquent was a surrogate for coherent arguments. The language was beautiful, but perhaps I prefer a more academic style. I would've read fiction instead. It felt strange for instance how unforbidden pleasures have always been kind of assumed to be understood and never clearly defined. Also, the beginning on vocabulary as implicit morality is never unpacked to a satisfactory degree in my opinion.

All in all, the book was too English-groovy for me, and lacked clear communication of ideas.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

'How much more intelligible this reasoning would be in lectures,' I thought, and then read on the final pages that this book is a collation of lectures.

The passion of forbidden pleasure is very pretty, but it isn't the instigator of joy of life. There are other ways.

[Shaun · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will make you consider :
- What you obey and why.
- Are these your rules or someone else’s?
- What is forbidden and allowed.
- What has been mislabelled and what should be recategorised.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book discusses pleasure and morality and psychoanalysis. It pulls from Oscar Wilde, Freud, Neitzsche, etc.

It's thought-provoking and a good conversation starter.

[Alex Yard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Totally awful. First one star rating I've given in quite a while. My full thoughts on this utterly needless self congratulatory book are featured on my formal review on RunSpotRun.com, which was one of the easiest reviews I've written.

[Indah Threez Lestari · Rating 3 out of 5]

709 - 2020

[Izzy Mackintosh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly not a casual read. Long sentences and many, many quotes make it a tough read in parts. But the message I think is ultimately hopeful for humanity.

[İzel Özdemircan · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Sanki hiç sormuyoruz, “ Nereden biliyorsun?” ya da “Nasıl inanıyorsun?” diye.’

[Elke de Echte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adam Phillips certainly masters a most elegant way to share interesting philosophical / psychoanalytical ideas, here focusing on the forbidden fruit so as to reveal the potential of equally secretive Unforbidden Pleasures. We may well have underestimated just how restricted our restrictiveness makes us in terms of our everyday desires… how even we want to be forbidden, narrowed and confined! This dense thesis certainly offers much food for thought. Personally though, I mostly enjoyed Philips’ pulling out anecdotal background information on most interesting figures like Oscar Wilde, Sigmund Freud or Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Mohamad · Rating 5 out of 5]

امیدوارم کسی گرفتار فیلیپس نشه !!!
سخن بسیار اما ...
چون به گفتن در نمی آید؛ چه سود از شرح این دیوانگی ها، بی قراری ها!؟

گوشه به گوشه کتاب جملات و تعاریف از نویسندگان، اندیشمندان، فلاسفه، روانشناسان و بزرگان ادبیات هست، از افلاطون تا نیچه و شوپنهاور؛ از سارتر تا بکت؛ از آدم و حوا و موسی تا داروین؛ از شکسپیر و جاناتان سوییفت و اسکار وایلد؛ از فروید و لکان؛ از فوکو و زیمل و ها��ز ...

و فیلیپس بی بدیلِ کمتر شناخته شده

اولین آشنایی با فیلیپس به انتشارات «پندار تابان» برمیگرده که اون هم به نوبه خودش مجموعه خیلی خوبی از آثار روانشناسی هست؛ اما فیلیپس مناسب برای اهل ادبیاتِ علاقه مند به روانشناسی و مشتاق فلسفه، زندگی آدمی جهان

«کسی که به خودش فکر نمی کند، اساسا فکر نمی کند»
«جست و جوی علل جنون، می تواند آدم را به جنون بکشاند.»
«همه پرسش های اخلاقی، پرسش از فرمانبرداری اند.»
«تباه کننده ترین نوع فرمانبرداری، آن نوع فرمانبرداری است که از آن بی اطلاعیم.»
«خشم امیدواری است؛ امید اینکه چیزها می توانند متفاوت باشند، که درماندگی و عجز می تواند بهبود یابد.»
«احساس گناه می تواند نوعی مفر یا گریزگاه باشد.»
«زیر سوال بردن قوانین توسط آدم ها هیچ وقت کهنه نمی شود.»
«ادمی با از یاد بردن خودش، جهان را مال خود می کند.»
«جهان و زندگی نمی توانند خشنودی حقیقی برای ما به ارمغان بیاورند.»
«لذت ها، رنجمان را جبران نمی کنند.»


دیگر آثار نویسنده :


عقل در برابر جنون (نشر پندار تابان)
نگاهی روانکاوانه به توجه طلبی (نشر پندار تابان)
حسرت (نشر بیدگل)

[Aaron Ambrose · Rating 5 out of 5]

"If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments." So sang They Might Be Giants, and it's one of the ideas that Phillips explores in this dense, challenging, counter-intuitive, brilliant, hopeful book. Why do we think that people who are more critical are more intelligent? Why do we think that forbidden things are more desirable than unforbidden things? And crucially, why are we so damn hard on ourselves for not measuring up to all these inherited standards that surround us?

Phillips challenges these ideas, and he suggests ways for us to imagine a different way of thinking about them. It seems weird to call this a self-help book, but I gained so much clarity while reading it. The middle chapter, "On Self-Criticism," especially, feels like a life changer.

[Ahmed Alzaidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author combines the writings of Wilde, Nietzsche, and Freud into an ocean of thoughts. Like a large body of water I found it difficult to take it all in at once, but as I continued to read I began to move with the undulating waves of its literary lucidity. I'm 46 now and have been thinking a great deal about the past, life, and purpose. Unexpectedly this book was the most timely of readings.

What is normal? Why do we strive to be normal? Are we aware of the systems in our life that control us? All questions that are pondered and meditated upon in this book.

[Javelin Hands · Rating 4 out of 5]

This small book is so dense, it seems that each reader may take away a different thesis. For me, the thread which was most prominent suggested the ways in which we forbid ourselves, and indeed how we want to be forbidden, narrowed and confined.

http://www.runspotrun.com/book-review...

[Kozmosevren · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Vicdan tamamlanmamış intikamın sonucudur. Başlangıçta öldürmek istediğimiz başka insanlar vardır, ama bu o kadar tehlikelidir ki kendimizi suçlayarak kendi kendimizi öldürürüz; böyle canice düşüncelere sahip olduğumuzdan dolayı kendimizi cezalandırmak için kendimizi katlederiz."

[John Terrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

wonderfully convoluted writing. You have to concentrate. The book is loaded with pearls of wisdom.

I have to reread it to glean them all.

[Kara of BookishBytes · Rating 1 out of 5]

Way too philosophical of a book for me. I'm not sure how this ended up on my to-read list, but it's not my cup of tea.