Jana Light > Recent Status Updates

KANT, CEASE AND DESIST WITH THE "TAKING THINGS INTIMATELY INTO THE ORGANS" TALK, MY INNER 12 YEAR OLD IS WINNING OVER MY SERIOUS ADULTING

Je ne lis que Candide, mais je pourrais lire les autres ouvrages si je le désire. Qui sait!

Ce livre est absolutement charmant! J'adore le petit prince (qui pleure) et le garcon qui aime dessiner et repare sa voiture. C'est une bonne practique pour apprendre le francais.

WHY DOES HENRY HATE DIALOGUE. WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE EXPOSITION. *SHOW* SOME CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, DON'T JUST TELL IT ALL, HANK. Good lord. Let's hope this gets more interesting. Wikipedia promised me it would so I'll hold them to it.

As one would expect, a mixed bag. But so, so good for the thinking theist, or the curious skeptic. I'm glad I decided to take the slow, deliberate approach even if some weeks I am ready to be done!

Oof, I am not the target audience for this book. I don't know the primary texts and I *definitely* don't know the language of the primary texts. Pushing through for the random jewels I'm able to glean. (Can you glean jewels? Or is that metaphor faulty? MAYBE TZOHAR WILL TELL ME IN CHAPTER 5.)

How is Kreeft a professor of philosophy at Boston College?! I am so baffled and annoyed. His tone, when he encounters a philosophy he disagrees with (WHICH IS MOST OF THEM) is condescending, dismissive, and error-ridden. I will probably finish because #Tolkien and #philosophy, but I really should have checked the author before buying. I blame myself. (PS -- THEOLOGY IS NOT PHILOSOPHY, DUDE.) End rant. FOR NOW.

Nearing the end of the trilogy: 1). A STRIKING lack of women. The second novel has a central character who is a women, but that's quite an outlier. 2). Lots of Deus ex Machina, for lack of a better term. (I'm sure there is one, I just can't think of it.) There's always someone more clever who knows more than the others, layer upon layer. I don't know what I think about this yet. Will report back at end of book.

This book is dragging for me. I'm hoping to find myself more engaged soon, but have a feeling that as soon as I do, that's when all the sad stuff will happen. BUT ONWARD.

I knew this moment would come. I have found it. Stokes obviously studied logical positivism, as his clear explanatory power breaks down in the "The Linguistic Turn" section (the curse of too much but not enough knowledge!) and he's including as "essential" people I've never even heard of. A quick Google search confirmed my suspicion. YOU PHILOSOPHERS ARE A PREDICTABLE LOT.

Adler and Van Doren make reading sound like WORK, and they mean to. I'm energized and exhausted all at the same time. Thoughts so far: I'm pleased that my "while reading" approach is exactly what they prescribe. (A+ for me!) I also feel appropriately chastised about my poor pre-reading efforts (F for me womp). I'm committed to doing more upfront work to better take in a book. (This is all non-fiction so far, fyi.)

So far I am underwhelmed, bored, & annoyed. Harris argues that we should (ha) derive our morals from science, that science is the proper base of moral truths. I agree with about half his points, but am rather appalled at how blatantly he disregards the actual difficulty of morality -- that its premises are *not* like those of science, and that the is/ought distinction is important and complicates things! Argh

I love the idea grounding this book, that we should give according to impact not emotion. I've already come up against some blind spots and biased justifications that are interesting if Singer does intend to stick to strict utilitarian calculations of good, but those aren't detracting from the value of this book for ethical living.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to absorb all the detailed science Johnston describes, but once I let myself "off the hook" for that it's become a rather quick read. He's situating our emotional responses in a biological/survivalist framework. I've read many of these arguments before, but the biology and neuroscience details are fascinating additions.

It's all starting to come together in my brain... finally...

I'm over 100 pages in and still waiting to feel like I can answer the question, "What is Hart doing here?" with confidence. This is dense, rich, challenging, and, well, fantastic. Best read with a reading buddy (but I may be biased because I have the best reading buddy ever. Sorry 'boutcha.).

This book is SO GOOD. It's written in small chapters teasing out single insights, so it's digestible and accessible. I cannot recommend it highly enough for people who care about truth and about trying to see the world as it truly is and not how we either want it to be or instinctively see it as being. We are the most rational creatures that exist, but still quite bad at rationality on an instinctual level.

Oh my word, this is one of the densest philosophy books I have ever read. Even if the argument is compelling, I don't know how I will even rate this at the end, being as it is so burdened with cumbersome language, endless definitions, and a real need for more linearity. Only 591 more pages to go...

Oof, this is a great book. It's dense and a bit dry, but a very interesting look at the cultural, social, and psychological reasons we are primed to embrace religion. Important considerations that should be kept in conversation with questions of the truth claims of any religion. I'm particularly enjoying the psychological elements.

This book is so much more than I was expecting. Arendt goes into greater historical detail and deeper analysis than I expected, and I am loving it. It's a lot of information and insight to digest, however, so small bites. :-)

At times this book is enthralling. At other times it is mind-numbing. At times Heidegger takes a thousand words (some of them made up) to say something simple. At other times his going on and on is helpful (and his made-up words perfect). At times I have no idea what he's saying. At other times he makes such clear sense that I'm amazed it took so long for philosophy to get to these ideas. I'm so glad I'm reading it.

Taking a break because my book has pages 85 - 116 twice. :-p So far I am not impressed. Johnson presents assumptions as fact and is so intellectually biased that I don't feel Socrates and Plato are well-represented, even though I don't know the real story (that's the point -- no one does). And in case you think I'm just cranky:

http://www.washingtonindependentrevie...

Ugh, so far Aurelius tends to rub me the wrong way. Maybe I'm cranky. But to have a Roman emperor claim that "stuff" doesn't matter, that harm is only a matter of attitude, rankles. Stoicism can be a philosophy of the privileged, absolutely, but only if the privileged admit and denounce that which affords them their privilege. I have discovered several gems, however, so who knows what my final estimation will be.

Listening to this book on LibriVox while running.

I ran out of podcasts (9 mile runs are LONG), so I'm listening to Wharton. This is probably not a great read if you're trying not to throw yourself off ocean cliffs...

I've cried twice in the Prologue alone. This is going to be interesting.

I am a little bit in love with this book. The prose is so clean and the visuals so complex and heart-wrenching. This book is almost worth having insomnia.

Dense, rich, difficult yet accessible. So far it's been everything I hoped it would be.